JUDGMENT M. Jaichandren, J. 1. This writ appeal has been filed against the order of the learned single Judge of this Court, dated 18.1.2011 made in W.P.No.12035 of 2004. The appellants in the present writ appeal were the petitioners in the writ petition, in W.P.No.12035 of 2004. The writ petition has been filed by the appellants praying for the issuance of a writ of Certiorari to call for and quash the impugned order, dated 6.1.2004, passed by the second respondent Tribunal, in I.D.No.53 of 2003. 2. From the records available, it is noted that the first respondent had joined in service, as a Casual Labourer, in the year, 1986. He was granted the temporary status of Mazdoor, during the year, 1994. He had been selected for Group 'D' post and had been sent to two months of training, from 25.9.2000 to 17.11.2000. However, the first respondent had not attended the training from 1.11.2000, due to his alleged illness. Therefore, the officer in charge of the training centre concerned had sent a show cause notice to the first respondent, dated 15.11.2000. Thereafter, a letter, dated 15.12.2000 had also been sent to the first respondent proposing to terminate his service. As there was no response, an order, dated 24.1.2001, had been passed terminating the service of the first respondent. The first respondent had challenged the order of termination by raising an industrial dispute, before the second respondent Industrial Tribunal, in I.D.No.53 of 2003. The second respondent Tribunal had held that the appellants had not followed the necessary procedures and the relevant provisions of law before terminating the service of the first respondent. No charges had been framed against the first respondent and no enquiry had been conducted, as contemplated under law. 3. The second respondent Tribunal had held that the appellant Department ought to have followed the mandatory provisions of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and had held that the order of termination of the first respondent was void, ab initio, and had also held that the order of dismissal from service, for the absence of the first respondent, is disproportionate in nature. Therefore, the second respondent Tribunal had set aside the order of punishment of the dismissal from service imposed on the first respondent and had ordered his reinstatement in service, with backwages. 4. Therefore, the second respondent Tribunal had set aside the order of punishment of the dismissal from service imposed on the first respondent and had ordered his reinstatement in service, with backwages. 4. The order passed by the second respondent Tribunal, dated 6.1.2004, in I.D.No.53 of 2003, had been challenged by the appellants, in W.P.No.12035 of 2004. The learned single Judge had dismissed the writ petition, by an order, dated 18.1.2011, confirming the order passed by the second respondent Tribunal. Hence, the appellants had filed the present writ appeal challenging the order of the learned single Judge, dated 18.1.2011 made in W.P.No.12035 of 2004. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had submitted that various grounds had been raised by the appellants in the present writ appeal. It has been stated that the order passed by the second respondent Tribunal, dated 6.1.2004, in I.D.No.53 of 2003, is erroneous, as the first respondent had absented himself from training without obtaining the necessary permission from the authority concerned. Even though a show cause notice, dated 15.11.2000, had been issued to the first respondent, he had not submitted his explanation for the said show cause notice. Further, no reply had been received from the first respondent for the letter, dated 15.12.2000, which had been sent to the first respondent, proposing to terminate his service. Therefore, the impugned order of termination, dated 24.1.2001, had been passed, terminating the service of the first respondent. In such circumstances, the second respondent Tribunal had erred in holding that the order of termination from service imposed on the first respondent was bad in law and that it was disproportionate in nature. It had also been stated that the learned single Judge had confirmed the order of the second respondent Tribunal, dated 6.1.2004, in I.D.No.53 of 2003, without properly appreciating the circumstances under which the impugned order of termination had been passed, terminating the service of the first respondent. 6. Per contra, it had been contended on behalf of the first respondent that the appellants had terminated the service of the first respondent without following the relevant provisions of law. It had been further stated that the principles of natural justice had not been followed before the impugned order had been passed. The termination of the first respondent from service is disproportionate in nature. 7. It had been further stated that the principles of natural justice had not been followed before the impugned order had been passed. The termination of the first respondent from service is disproportionate in nature. 7. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, it is clear that no charges had been framed against the first respondent, as per the relevant provisions of law and the necessary procedures had not been followed for conducting an enquiry against the first respondent before the impugned order of termination had been passed. 8. It is further noted that the appellant Department had not followed the principles of natural justice before passing the impugned order, dated 24.1.2001, terminating the service of the first respondent. Therefore, we do not find sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge, dated 18.1.2011, made in W.P.No.12035 of 2004, confirming the order passed by the second respondent Tribunal, dated 6.1.2004, in I.D.No.53 of 2003. However, at this stage of the hearing of the writ appeal, it has been submitted that the quantum of backwages payable to the first respondent is Rs.3,90,826/-, as the other amounts due to the first respondent had already been paid to him. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the appellants had further submitted that the first respondent would not be entitled to the payment of backwages for the period during which he was not in service. On the contrary, the learned counsel appearing for the first respondent had stated that as per the order passed by the learned single of this Court, dated 18.1.2011, in W.P.No.12035 of 2004, confirming the order of the second respondent Tribunal, dated 6.1.2004 made in I.D.No.53 of 2003, the first respondent would be entitled to backwages and therefore, the contentions raised on behalf of the appellants cannot be countenanced. 10. In such circumstances, we find it appropriate to direct the appellants to pay a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two Lakhs), to the first respondent, as full and final settlement of the amount said to be due to him. The appellants shall pay the said amount, to the first respondent, within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Accordingly, the writ appeal stands dismissed, with the above directions. No costs.