Judgment R.S. Jha, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition being aggrieved by the award dated 20-4-1999 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jabalpur in Reference Case No. ID/Ref/8/90, whereby the orders of termination of service the petitioner have been upheld and the reference in that regard made by the petitioner has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was working as a medical representative in the establishment of the respondent-company at Indore region and was posted at Jabalpur. It is submitted that on 5-6-1989 the respondent-company issued an order of en-bloc transfers of 22 representatives to remote areas including the petitioner who was transferred from Indore region to Imphal in Guwahati region. It is submitted that the order was passed by the respondent-company on account of union activities of the petitioner with a view to harass and punish him for the same and, therefore, after issuance of the said order, the M.P. Medical & Sales Representatives Association (for short "MPMRA") which is affiliated to Federation of Medical & Sales Representatives Association of India (for short "FMRAI"), which is the recognized forum by the IDPL, went on strike against the en-bloc transfers. 3. It is submitted that thereafter the Union of the petitioner initiated conciliation proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Satna, however, before any conciliation proceedings could take place, a charge sheet was issued to the petitioner on 27-9-1989. It is submitted that the charge sheet was issued to the petitioner only to victimize him and pressurize him to comply the order of transfer, however, the authority, without conducting a proper detailed enquiry or giving any opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence, passed orders of his termination on 8-11-1989. 4. The petitioner, being aggrieved, raised the Industrial dispute on 22-11-1989 against the termination which was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government for adjudication. The Labour Court, Jabalpur, after giving due opportunity to the petitioner and permitting him to adduce evidence has passed the impugned order dated 20-4-1999 being aggrieved by which the petitioner has filed the present petition. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a workman and has been subjected to termination without following the procedure prescribed by law or conducting any enquiry as envisaged by the rules and regulations governing the petitioner's service. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner is a workman and has been subjected to termination without following the procedure prescribed by law or conducting any enquiry as envisaged by the rules and regulations governing the petitioner's service. It is stated that the termination of the petitioner was bad in view of the fact that it was passed during the conciliation proceedings thereby changing the service conditions of the petitioner during conciliation proceedings which is impermissible in law. 6. The learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-company, per contra, submits that the petitioner alongwith several others went on indefinite strike after issuance of orders of transfer and in spite of the best efforts by the management to resolve the issue and calling the petitioner and representative members of the Union for talks they failed to respond to the same. It is further pointed out that though proceedings for conciliation were initiated by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Secretary of the FMRAI was summoned for the same by the Conciliation Officer on 14-8-1989, however, the Secretary or any representative of the Union failed to appear before the Conciliation Officer and, therefore, the conciliation proceedings were deemed to have failed on account of non-participation of the petitioner and his Union. It is submitted that no reference application was ever made by the petitioner or the Union before the Conciliation Officer regarding change of service conditions during pendency of conciliation proceedings. On the contrary, the petitioner instead of doing so, initiated fresh conciliation proceedings against the order of termination which ultimately resulted in failure and ultimate reference to the Labour Court which was decided by the impugned award. 7. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that in such circumstances as the petitioner failed to make any reference under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there was change in the service conditions during pendency of the conciliation proceedings rendering the order of termination bad is misplaced and misconceived. 8. It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel that in such circumstances as the petitioner failed to make any reference under Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act, therefore, the contention of the petitioner that there was change in the service conditions during pendency of the conciliation proceedings rendering the order of termination bad is misplaced and misconceived. 8. It is further submitted that the respondent/authorities had in fact followed the procedure prescribed by law and rules and had issued notice in the departmental enquiry to the petitioner but the petitioner instead of participating in the departmental enquiry sent a letter on 14-10-1989 (Annexure P-6) clearly stating therein that he was on strike and, therefore, would not participate in the departmental proceedings. It is submitted that in such circumstances, the authorities had no other option but to proceed further in the matter and pass orders of termination as admittedly the petitioner had failed to comply with the order of transfer and had misbehaved with the officers of the respondent-company and had also refused to participate in the departmental proceedings. 9. Learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent-company has further pointed out that several persons who had been transferred alongwith the petitioner had approached various High Courts against their orders of transfer but all such petitions had been dismissed and the orders of dismissal have also been affirmed by the Supreme Court and in support thereof the respondents have filed orders of Andhara Pradesh High Court passed in W.P. No. 16439/1989, as Annexure R-4, in W.P. No. 8186/1989 as Annexure R-5 and in W.A. No. 1108/1989 as Annexure R-6, order passed by the Punjab & Haryana High Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 9545/1989, as Annexure R-8, order passed by the Supreme Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 2032/1990, as Annexure P-9 and the order passed by the Labour Court, Panipat in Reference No. 76/1994, as Annexure P-10. 10. It is submitted by the learned senior counsel that the respondent-company has in fact closed down on account of its bad financial condition and is a sick industrial company within the meaning of Section 3(1)(o) of Sick Industrial Companies Act and is under rehabilitation in accordance with the scheme framed by the Board for Industrial and Financial Reconstruction (in short "BIFR"). The proceedings before the BIFR dated 4-6-2013 had been brought on record by the respondent-company by way of an application i.e. I.A. No. 3987/2012 in support of the submissions made by the learned senior counsel for respondent who contends that the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and deserves to be dismissed. 11. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and after perusing the record it is observed that the petitioner was transferred from Indore region to Guwahati by order dated 5-6-1989. It is undisputed and in fact an admitted fact that subsequent to the order of transfer the petitioner alongwith his Union went on strike and had admittedly refused to comply with the order of transfer. It is further undisputed that after issuance of charge sheet, the petitioner had sent a letter dated 14-10-1989 informing the respondent/authorities that he was on strike and therefore would not participate in the departmental proceedings and that as the petitioner had refused to participate in the proceedings, the authorities had no option but to proceed further against him and pass the order of termination. 12. From a perusal of the impugned award it is clear that the Labour Court has considered the aforesaid aspects in paragraph 10 of the impugned award. It is further clear that the Labour Court has given due opportunity to the petitioner to adduce evidence and during his cross examination he has admitted the aforesaid aspects before the Labour Court. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that as the petitioner had refused to participate in the departmental proceedings, the respondent/authorities had no option but to proceed ex parte against the petitioner and as the charge of deliberate and conscious non-compliance by the petitioner is admitted, no fault can be found in the order of termination of the petitioner. 13. From a perusal of Annexure R-4, filed by the respondents which is the order passed by the Andhra Pradesh High Court in respect of one Shri S.P. Sastry who was transferred alongwith the petitioner, it is further apparent that the Andhra Pradesh High Court has held as under :- "But in this case, the disciplinary authority has given requisite time to the petitioner to submit his explanation, but the reply which he got was that as he was on strike, he cannot attend the enquiry or attend to any official correspondence. Thereby he virtually indicated that he is not going to participate in the enquiry. In these circumstances, the disciplinary authority was left with no option excepting passing the orders as per the material available on record. Therefore, it was not practicable to hold any further enquiry against the petitioner when he had refused to participate in the enquiry. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the respondents that in view of the stand taken by the petitioner in response to the show cause notice issued by the disciplinary authority, the disciplinary authority was left with no option except to conclude the enquiry on the basis of the available record and as the available record indicated that the petitioner flouted the orders of the Management by not reporting to the duty at the new place of his posting, he has passed the orders dismissing him from service, taking into consideration the fact that the marketing activity of the respondents, which is a public sector undertaking, was suffering on account of the adamant attitude of the petitioner. Therefore, the order of the disciplinary authority, i.e. the 2nd respondent, does not suffer from any infirmity." Similar view has been taken by the Andhra Pradesh High Court and Punjab & Haryana High Court. It is also clear that Civil Writ Petition No. 2032/1990 filed by another such employee of the Indian Drugs & Pharmaceuticals Ltd., has also been dismissed by the Supreme Court by the order, Annexure R-9. 14. In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I do not find any illegality, perversity or material irregularity in the impugned award dated 20-4-1999, passed by the Labour Court, Jabalpur, which has been passed on the basis of proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and the undisputed admissions of the petitioner regarding his refusal to participate in the departmental proceedings. 15. In the circumstances, the petition filed by the petitioner is misconceived and is accordingly dismissed. 16. In the facts and circumstances of the case there shall be no order as to costs.