JUDGMENT : Dr. S.N. Pathak, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 30.01.2001, passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad in Misc. Case No. 02 of 1996, whereby the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex-parte Award was rejected for non-prosecution. The petitioner has also prayed for quashing of the Award dated 05.01.1996, passed in Ref. Case No. 09 of 1994, by which the termination was held to be bad and the concerned workman was ordered to be reinstated in service with full back wages. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. It is the case of the petitioner that the Government of Bihar through the Ministry of Labour, Employment & Training raised the dispute arising between the parties for adjudication vide notification No. 3/D/11019/93 L&E-219 dated 10.02.1994. The terms of reference are as follows:- “Whether the termination of services of Sri Ram Prakash Giri, Supervisor, Bhawankara Goshal, Matkuria, Dhanbad is proper? If not, whether he should be given compensation?” 4. In view of receipt of the notification, the parties to the disputes were noticed. The workman appeared before the Labour Court and filed his written statement. It is the case of the petitioner that on 24.05.1996, he received a notice that Award would be pronounced on 07.06.1996. Accordingly, the petitioner appeared before the Court concerned on that date. It is the further case of the petitioner that he appeared on 07.06.1996, where he came to know that Award has already been pronounced vide order dated 05.01.1996 in Ref. Case No. 09 of 1994. The petitioner immediately moved an application before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dhanbad for setting aside the exparte Award bringing notice of the Court the entire facts. The said petition for setting aside the Award was registered as Misc. Case No. 02 of 1996. The said miscellaneous case was rejected vide order dated 30.01.2001. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is an ex-parte Award and without any valid notice and affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the Award has been declared in favour of the respondent-workman. The said miscellaneous case was rejected vide order dated 30.01.2001. Hence, this writ petition has been filed. 5. Mr. Kumar Vaibhav, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that it is an ex-parte Award and without any valid notice and affording any opportunity to the petitioner, the Award has been declared in favour of the respondent-workman. Learned counsel submits that even a copy of the written statements filed by the workmen, was not supplied to the petitioner and as such, the petitioner was not in a position to know about the case. 6. On the other hand, Mr. Babban Lal, learned senior counsel assisted by Mr. Ashok Kumar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the respondent, justifying the impugned Award, submits that from the records itself it is crystal clear that on receipt of notification from the Government of Bihar, the Management failed and neglected to appear despite due service of notice by registered post and as such, rightly, the case fixed for hearing ex-parte. Mr. Babban Lal, learned senior counsel, submits that workman proceeded on leave w.e.f. 01.06.1991 to 10.06.1991 and on 11.06.1991, he reported for duty, but he was not allowed to resume his duty. When contacted, he was informed that his services have been terminated. Learned senior counsel submits that before the order of termination, no notice or in lieu thereof, notice pay was given to him neither any charge-sheet was issued nor inquiry was conducted against him and retrenchment compensation was also not paid and therefore, the order of termination was illegal and as such, the workman was entitled to be reinstated with full back wages and other consequential benefits. Learned senior counsel submits that the order of termination simpliciter is bad in law as there is no compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act and as such, he has been rightly reinstated in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. There is no illegality in the impugned Award of reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages. 7. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned order. No interference is required in the order. Learned Labour Court, Dhanbad has rightly quashed the order of termination simpliciter for non-compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that there is no illegality in the impugned order. No interference is required in the order. Learned Labour Court, Dhanbad has rightly quashed the order of termination simpliciter for non-compliance of Section 25(F) of the Industrial Disputes Act. 8. Resultantly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.