JUDGMENT 1. This special appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner NGO against the order dated 18.4.2014 passed by learned Single Judge in S.B.Civil writ Petition No.5081/2013, dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner. 2. The facts indispensable for the present adjudication are that the respondent workman was working in the appellant NGO. On 14.8.2008, one employee of the appellant NGO Ms.Meena Pareek submitted a complaint letter for harassment and misbehaviour at work place by the respondent workman. On 26.12.2008, a committee was constituted by the appellant NGO to enquire into the complaint filed by Ms.Meena Pareek. The committee submitted a report, which is Annex.7 on record, and based on this report, the petitioner's services were terminated vide order dated 29.12.2008 w.e.f. 26.12.2008. 3. The respondent workman raised an industrial dispute claiming that he worked continuously for 16 years 240 days with the appellant and without following the necessary parameters of natural justice, the respondent's services have been terminated. 4. The learned Labour Court after hearing the parties passed the award on 8.3.2013 directing reinstatement of the respondent workman in service with continuity w.e.f. 26.12.2008 with 25% back wages. 5. The appellant preferred the aforestated writ petition before this Court which was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 18.4.2014 on the ground that the respondent workman was not given any notice or any opportunity of hearing and his termination was without following the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 6. The appellant being aggrieved has preferred this special appeal. 7. This Court admitted the appeal on 9.2.2015 by passing the following order :- "While challenging the judgment impugned dated 18.4.2014, learned counsel for the appellant submits that from plain reading of the order terminating the respondent-workman from service, it is apparent that the termination was not simpliciter but stigmatic as such, there was no need to adhere condition precedent for retrenchment prescribed under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. So far as the issue for not holding any enquiry before discontinuing the respondent-workman from service is concerned, it is submitted that the workman himself, while claiming provident fund from the office of the Regional Commissioner(Provident Fund) that that he left the service voluntarily. So far as the issue for not holding any enquiry before discontinuing the respondent-workman from service is concerned, it is submitted that the workman himself, while claiming provident fund from the office of the Regional Commissioner(Provident Fund) that that he left the service voluntarily. It is also urged that the labour court looking to the nature of termination of the respondent-workman, as apparent from the perusal of the order of termination, could have conducted an enquiry being empowered to do so as per the provisions of Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. Admit. Issue notice. Issue notice of the stay application also. In the meanwhile and until further orders, the effect and operation of the award passed by the Labour Court, Bhilwara dated 8.3.2013 in Labour Case No. 56/2009 shall remain stayed." 8. This Court on 18.5.2015 while recording that despite service, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent, confirmed the interim order dated 9.2.2015 and posted the appeal for hearing in due course. 9. Even till date, the respondent workman has not taken any steps to counter the appeal and defend the impugned orders. Today also, no one has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent workman. 10. Counsel for the appellant has pointed out from the document Annexure-7 of the writ petition that the respondent workman has admitted his guilt of misbehaving and harassing Ms.Meena Pareek at workplace and also admitted that for this, he was facing criminal proceedings. Annex.7 is a report of the committee which conducted enquiry into the complaint filed by Ms.Meena Pareek. Counsel for the appellant has further pointed out the documents Annex.10 and Annex.11 which show that the respondent workman wanted to voluntary give up his services on 26.12.2008 as he has applied for his terminal dues under the Employees Provident Fund Scheme, 1952 as also under the Employees Pension Scheme, 1995. The documents Annex.10 and Annex.11 clearly indicate that the respondent workman voluntarily left his services w.e.f. 26.12.2008. These documents further indicate that the respondent has acquiesced and accepted his guilt while accepting the termination order and seeking terminal dues from the appellant. 11. The documents Annex.10 and Annex.11 clearly indicate that the respondent workman voluntarily left his services w.e.f. 26.12.2008. These documents further indicate that the respondent has acquiesced and accepted his guilt while accepting the termination order and seeking terminal dues from the appellant. 11. After hearing learned counsel for the appellant as well as perusing the record of the case, this court finds that though the respondent had worked from 1993 to 2008 but he had accepted his misbehaviour and harassment meted to Ms.Meena Pareek and the Committee constituted by the appellant to enquire into the said complaint, has recorded that the respondent workman has accepted the allegations and thus, has made himself susceptible to a termination order. The learned Labour Court has failed to appreciate that the acquiescence is writ large in the documents viz. committee's proceedings Annex.7 and the respondent's voluntary conduct of seeking terminal dues (Annex.10 & Annex.11). This Court is of the view that if a lady makes a complaint of harassment and misbehaviour at the work place, it deserves to be treated seriously. The learned Single Judge has failed to notice that the enquiry report is on record and every opportunity was available to the respondent workman to have refuted the charges and in fact, he accepted his guilt in Annex.7. The respondent is not entitled to any pension or other benefits. However, he voluntarily accepted the termination and voluntarily recorded that he want to leave his service on 26.12.2008 as he applied for terminal dues vide Annex.10 and Annex.11. The acquiescence on the part of the respondent clearly indicates that he was guilty and he could not be continued in service and thus, his termination was lawful. 12. In light of the observations made above, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant was justified to pass the termination order as it had held an enquiry wherein the respondent workman had admitted his guilt and so also, the respondent voluntarily claimed his terminal dues. The stigmatic order would not entitle the respondent for protection under Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act. 13. As an upshot of the above discussion, the present special appeal is allowed. The impugned order dated 18.4.2014 passed by learned Single Judge and the impugned award dated 8.3.2013 are hereby quashed and set aside.