Judgment N.K.MODY, J. ( 1. ) Being aggrieved by the order dated April 20, 2007 passed by Industrial Court, Indore in appeal No. 259/MPIR.2006 whereby the order dated April 20, 2006 passed by Labour Court, Dhar in case No. 222/MPIR/98 whereby the application filed by the petitioner was dismissed, was maintained, the present petition has been filed. ( 2. ) Short facts of the case are that petitioner filed a petition before the learned trial Court alleging that petitioner was working with respondent and petitioner was charge-sheeted vide order dated September 1, 1997. After holding domestic inquiry services of the petitioner were terminated from the months of October, 1997 against which petition was filed wherein it was alleged that the petitioner was not given sufficient opportunity to defend himself. It was alleged that the domestic inquiry was not in accordance with law and in the domestic inquiry sufficient time was given to the management to adduce the evidence against the petitioner but no opportunity was given to the petitioner to adduce the evidence. It was alleged that petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the order of termination be set-aside. The case was contested by the respondent wherein all the allegations made against the petitioner were denied. It was alleged that after holding an inquiry services of the respondent has been terminated.. It was prayed that petition be dismissed. After framing of issues and recording of evidence petition of petitioner was dismissed against which an appeal was preferred by the petitioner which was also dismissed, hence this petition. ( 3. ) Learned counsel for the petitioner argued at length and submits that case was fixed for recording of evidence of Respondent/ management on September 9,1997, September 11, 1997, September 13, 1997, September 16, 1997, September 18,1997, September 19,1997 and September 20, 1997 and after closing the evidence of respondent case was fixed for the evidence of petitioner on September 22, 1997 and without giving any further opportunity evidence was closed and report was submitted against the petitioner. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Court below be set-aside. ( 4. It is submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition filed by the petitioner be allowed and the impugned order passed by learned Court below be set-aside. ( 4. ) Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the allegations against the petitioner were serious in nature and petitioner participated in the proceedings of all the dates and on September 20, 1997 petitioner did not turn-up, therefore, Inquiry Officer was having no option except to proceed ex parte. It is submitted that the petition filed by the petitioner be dismissed. ( 5. ) From perusal of record, it appears that the case was fixed for recording of evidence on September 9, 1997, September 11, 1997, September 13, 1997, September 16, 1997 and September 18, 1997. On that date, respondent closed the evidence and case was fixed for hearing on September 19, 1997. On that date, case was adjourned on the request of petitioner for September 20, 1997. On September 20, 1997 case was fixed for recording of evidence of petitioner for September 22, 1997, on September 22, 1997 petitioner did not appear therefore evidence was closed and report was submitted. Keeping in view the nature of allegation against the petitioner and also the fact that petitioner participated all through in the inquiry, there was no justification on the part of petitioner not to appear on September 20, 1997. In the facts and circumstances of the case when the petitioner was absent, Inquiry Officer was left with no option except, to close the inquiry. After taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the nature of allegations made against the petitioner which were found proved and keeping in view the fact that respondent is a Diamond Industry, this Court is of the opinion that it is not a fit case wherein interference can be made by this Court in concurrent findings of fact while exercising the jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. In view of this, the petition filed by the petitioner has no merits and is hereby dismissed. C.C. as per rules.