ORDER : Vijay Kumar Vyas, J. Services of the respondent being terminated on 31.10.1995 he raised an industrial dispute. Reference was made to the Labour Court. In his claim before the Labour Court the respondent stated that he was employed by the appellant on 07.10.1989. On 09.04.1991 he was brought on the regular rolls of the appellant and was paid salary in the regular pay scale. That without any reason, without serving a charge-sheet and without hearing him, service was terminated on 31.10.1995. 2. Served with the statement of claim the appellant filed a reply claiming that termination was post enquiry. No documents in support of said stand were filed. 3. Representative of the appellant stopped appearing before the Labour court. The workman led evidence. The plea of the appellant that respondent's service was terminated after serving a charge-sheet and holding an enquiry, remained a plea not proved. No document was proved. 4. The Labour Court returned a finding that termination was illegal. Reinstatement with 25% back wages have been granted. 5. The appellant filed a writ petition challenging the award in which it was admitted that the appellant did not file any document before the Labour Court and did not lead any evidence. The appellant never moved an application before the Labour Court pleading that the ex parte award be set aside. The appellant did not make an attempt to show to the Labour Court that there was sufficient cause for it not to appear on the date it was proceeded against ex parte. 6. We find that even in the writ petition no document has been filed showing that a charge-sheet was served upon the respondent. No document has been filed showing that an Enquiry Officer was appointed who complied with the principles of natural justice and after hearing the respondent found him guilty of embezzlement of funds justifying service of the respondent to be terminated. 7. We find no infirmity either in the order passed by the learned Single Judge or the award. 8. The writ-appeal is dismissed.