JUDGMENT The present writ petition has been preferred for issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing the Award dated 24th February, 1995 passed by the presiding officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 1/1987 (Annex.5) whereby and whereunder he has been pleased to hold that the action of the Management in terminating the service of the workmen involved in the reference was legal and justified and further held that the concerned workmen are not entitled for reinstatement or any other alleged relief. The further prayer is for issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of mandamus upon the concerned respondents to forbear from giving effect to or acting in pursuant to the said impugned award dated 24th February, 1995. 2. The facts, in brief, are set out as under: The petitioners herein were workmen and actively involved in trade union activities. A charge sheet was issued against them followed by notice of enquiry and after giving notice to them disciplinary proceedings were initiated against them. 3. The case of the workmen is that they were the permanent workers of M/s Shakti Kasth (P) Ltd., since long with unblemished record of service. They were agitating since long for their long standing demands under the leadership of Bihar Engineering Kamgar Union. This enraged the Management and in order to terrorize the members of the Union terminated their services illegally and arbitrarily and even without conducting any enquiry. The concerned workmen Shri Ram Dayal Singh was on sick leave granted by E.S.I. but his services were also terminated when he was undergoing treatment in the hospital. Before taking recourse to such an action no notice or in lieu thereof notice pay was given to them and no retrenchment compensation was paid to them and therefore, the action of Management taken in regard to their dismissal is highly illegal, unjust, improper and against the principles of natural justice and they are entitled to be reinstated with full back wages. 4. The case of the Management was that the concerned workmen were absent from their duties for a long period and were asked to submit medical certificate regarding their health and they were also charge sheeted twice for misbehavior and disobedience against their superiors but due to intervention of the Union no drastic action was taken against one of the workmen namely Ram Dayal. He again committed serious misconduct by entering into the factory in the night of 23.7.84 along with other workmen namely Laxman Singh, Parmeshwar Sharma, Vijay Kumar Sharma and one Md. Munshi Ansari in a drunken state and threatened the security guard and also created nuisance. Thereafter, charge sheet was issued to them on 28.7.84 calling upon them to show cause as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against them but they did not reply. Likewise other workmen also were charge sheeted for committing serious misconduct by obstructing supervisory staff to join duties and forcing other workers not to discharge their duties and this was repeated also. The workmen threatened the other workers not to go inside the factory during illegal strike and instigated them to go on strike and some workmen indulged in slowing down of works resulting in fall in production and they were warned twice for adopting ‘go slow work’ but instead of improving themselves they started refusing orders of superiors on day to day work. Some of the concerned workmen did not acknowledge receipt of the charge sheets issued to them consequently charge sheet was also sent to them separately by Registered Post but despite due services of charge sheet they failed and neglected to submit their reply. Accordingly, the management appointed Shri Brij Bihari Pandey as an enquiry officer to enquire about the charges levelled against them. Thereafter, notices were once again issued to them to defend their case but they did not choose to appear before enquiry officer. The enquiry officer was ultimately forced to proceed ex-parte report against them in which the workmen were held guilty of the charges levelled against them and considering the past record and repeated serious misconduct of the workmen, the Management decided to dismiss them from services w.e.f. 20.8.1984. 5. The petitioners being constrained after order of the dismissal raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred by the Ministry of labour, Govt. 5. The petitioners being constrained after order of the dismissal raised an Industrial Dispute and the matter was referred by the Ministry of labour, Govt. of India and following reference was made: “Whether termination of services of Meszrs (1) Ram Dayal Singh (2) Chandrike Sharma (3) lakshman Singh (4) Seo Kumar Vishwakarma (5) Braham deo Vishwakarma (6) Satya Narayan Vishwakarma (7) Vijay Kumar Sharma (8) Parmeshwar Sharma (9) Trilok Nath Mishra (10) Raghunaty Thakur (11) Daulat Prasad (12) Babulal Prasad (13) Yadunath Prasad and (14) Babular Sharma workmen of M/s Shakti kastha Pvt. Ltd., Gosaindih, P.O. Kasturba Ashram, District-Dhanbad is justified? If not, whether they are entitled to reinstatement or/and any other relief?” 6. The main contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that ex-parte enquiry was illegal and no opportunity was given nor any notice was served upon them. It is also submitted on behalf of the petitioners that no date was mentioned on which misconduct was committed and the Management was prejudiced and biased against the workmen, petitioners herein, for their trade union activity. The learned counsel for the petitioner has also referred to and relied upon AIR 1961 (Supreme Court) 1158 to support the contention, 7. It appears that a preliminary issue was raised before Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 1/1987 challenging the reference and the disciplinary proceedings on the ground that it was neither fair nor proper and vide a detailed speaking order dated 7.12.1989 the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad has held as under: “In view of the facts, evidence, circumstances and observations made above, I find and hold that the domestic inquiry conducted against the workmen concerned connected with this case is fair and proper.” Finally, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad after considering the pleadings, evidences and facts, in its impugned Award dated 24.2.1995, held that the action taken by the Management in regard to dismissal of the workmen was perfectly justified and they were not entitled to be reinstated. It also held that the workmen were found guilty of serious misconduct and were rightly dismissed from service after holding fair and proper enquiry. The aforesaid Award is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition. 8. I have considered the pleadings and the rival submission. It also held that the workmen were found guilty of serious misconduct and were rightly dismissed from service after holding fair and proper enquiry. The aforesaid Award is sought to be challenged in the present writ petition. 8. I have considered the pleadings and the rival submission. The fact remains that several notices were issued time and again and even charge sheet was issued to the concerned workmen, petitioners herein, but they chose not to appear nor did they file any show cause or reply. Even the enquiry officer again issued them notices and it was in these background that the Management had to proceed ex-parte. Even the Management witness No.2 in his statement has categorically stated that there was deliberate refusal to accept notice and thereafter the charge sheet and the notice of enquiry was pasted on the notice board to the knowledge of the workmen. The disciplinary authority finally on scrutinizing the past record and repeated serious misconduct on the part of the workmen and regular habit of creating nuisance, based on the enquiry report ultimately decided to dismiss them from services w.e.f. 20.8.1984. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to and relied upon AIR 1961 pg. 1158 to support her contention. However, this Judgment is against the petitioner wherein it has been held that if the proper procedure has been followed and the enquiry was properly held under the domestic tribunal then the dismissal of the employee who has been held to be guilty of misconduct for joining illegal strike should not be interfered with unless it applies unfair labour practice or victimization against the employee. 10. The learned Presiding Officer in its order dated 7.12.1989 specifically recorded that the disciplinary proceeding was fair and reasonable. The law in this regard is well settled and while interpreting Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again has held that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court to interfere against the order passed in a disciplinary proceeding is very limited. In M.P. Electricity Board Vrs. The law in this regard is well settled and while interpreting Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again has held that the jurisdiction of the Industrial Tribunal and the High Court to interfere against the order passed in a disciplinary proceeding is very limited. In M.P. Electricity Board Vrs. Jagdish Chandra Sharma reported in 2005 (3) SCC page 401 and again in 2008 (1) SCC page 224 while considering a series of judgment held that the Labour Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the employer unless there existed a violation of statutory provision in that behalf and or the quantum of punishment was shockingly disproportionate. In the instant case the charges were proved and the enquiry was held to be fair and proper and thus the learned Presiding Officer rightly held that the action of the Management in terminating the services of the workmen was legal and justified. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in 2004 (8) SCC page 129 at paragraph 11 held that if the services of the workmen were terminated for misconduct, the question of payment of any retrenchment compensation or service of any statutory notice would not arise. Thus the question of compliance with the provisions of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act would arise only if the services of the workman concerned were terminated on a ground other than misconduct. 12. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the settled law, this Writ Petition is devoid of any merit and the same is accordingly dismissed.