JUDGMENT Sharad Kumar Sharma, J. - The apparent admitted facts, which are reflected from the records of the writ petition, are that the petitioner is an Industry and falls to be within the ambit of an "Industry" as defined under the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, and respondent no.2 was a "workman" , who as per the finding recorded and the case of the petitioner himself, admittedly he was working in the capacity of the workman, with the petitioner/employer. Hence, there was a relationship of master and servant, which existed between them. 2. In the present writ petition in question, the petitioner employer, had given a challenge to the labour tribunal award, which has been rendered by the learned Labour Court, Haldwani District Nainital in an Adjudication Case No.87 of 1994. The initiation of the adjudication case, as aforesaid was as a consequence of a reference of a industrial dispute made under Section 4K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, by the Regional Deputy Labour Commissioner, Kumaoun Kshetra by virtue of an Order No.2283/86/CP079(K)/92 dated 21.03.1994. The said reference made was later on registered, as an Adjudication Case, which has been already referred above and a following point of determination, was referred to be adjudicated by the learned Labour Court, which is referred to hereunder:- 3. In a nutshell, the question which was referred to be adjudicated by the labour court, was as to whether the act of employer/petitioner, of dispensing the services of the workman/respondent on 23.08.1992, commensurate to the provisions contained under the Industrial Disputes Act if not, then and to what relief the workman would be entitled too. On issuance of aforesaid notice, the parties have put in appearance and they have filed their respective written statement. On issuance of aforesaid notice, the parties have put in appearance and they have filed their respective written statement. In the written statement thus, filed by respondent no.2/workman, he had specifically, taken up the case, that he was inducted into the services of the petitioner as a "reliever doubling", on 01.01.1986, but on account of certain allegations of misconduct his services were dispensed with; without assigning any reason and without even conducting any regular disciplinary proceedings, as has been contemplated under the standing orders, which were applicable over the establishment of the petitioner and hence, his case was that the action taken against him of dispensing the services, with effect from 23.08.1992, was arbitrary and contrary to the standing orders as, his case was that in an eventuality, if the services of workman/respondent no.2 (or any employee) for that matter, is being dispensed with on the ground of any misconduct as such, which is in derogation to the stipulation, which are provided in the standing order, applicable in the organization of the petitioner, in such an eventuality, the case of the workman/respondent no.2; in the written statement had been that there was no disciplinary proceedings, which was ever conducted against him, in order to settle by way of issuance of a charge sheet and conducting an inquiry with regards to the set of allegations levelled against him on the basis of which his services were dispensed with. He has further specifically come up with the case that the allegations, of a physical altercation and assault made by him, which has taken place was not even made as a subject matter of a police complaint or a trial before court in order to establish the offences, which are the foundation for dispensation of his services. 4. On the contrary in the written statement, which was filed by the petitioner, he admits, that the respondent no.2, was inducted in their establishment, as the workman on the post of a reliever. They further admit the fact that while working in the relieving department, the workman, has misconducted himself by stalking female employees and not even that the allegation levelled against him, was that he has misbehaved with his superior and had even on 22.08.1992, had physically assaulted the officials of the establishment of the petitioner. They further admit the fact that while working in the relieving department, the workman, has misconducted himself by stalking female employees and not even that the allegation levelled against him, was that he has misbehaved with his superior and had even on 22.08.1992, had physically assaulted the officials of the establishment of the petitioner. It was further observed that the female employee, who has alleged a misconduct against her of stalking had not been able to establish the commission of the said offence as no such action except registration of a complaint on administrative side before the Factory Manager, nor any medical examination was conducted on him and hence, exclusively taking the said pretext as to be a serious professional misconduct or misbehaviour with the female employees and physically assaulting the supervisor, has been extracted as to be the reason for dispensing the services with effect from 23.08.1992. 5. The stand taken in defence by the employee/workman and particularly, when there is a serious set of allegations of misconduct of a misbehaviour with the female employees, or a misbehaviour with the superior officials, or a physical assault to a superior officer, obviously all these set of allegations, there is no vacuum as such, in the legislation that the petitioner/employer, was left remediless, to resort to a procedure provided under law, before taking a decision, randomly of terminating the services on 23.08.1992, because the offence itself is said to have chanced on 22.08.1992 and there was a close proximity between the date of misconduct and date of removal, which is quite sufficient enough to establish and indicate that during the intervening period, no disciplinary proceedings as contemplated under the standing orders applicable to the department, was ever conducted against the respondent/workman, which was not practically possible between his short period, without due recourse to the procedure. 6. 6. The learned Labour Court has recorded the statements of the workman as D.W.1, where the fact of being employed in the year 1986 and having dispensed from the services in the year 1992 was a fact placed and pleaded on record, though the act of misconduct was attempted to be denied by the workman, where he has submitted that a false allegation, has been maliciously levelled against him and those set of allegations cannot be taken into consideration, until and unless a regular disciplinary proceedings, was conducted by the respondents to ascertain the fact of allegations levelled by superior employees or the female employees of the department, before dispensing the services of the workman. Admittedly, in the absence of there being any disciplinary proceedings, having being conducted against the workman/respondent no.2 and no opportunity of defence was ever provided to him, the action of dispensing the services on 23.08.1992, exclusively based on an incident of 22.08.1992, would be in violation of the provisions contained under Section 6N and the applicable standing orders, which were applicable in the establishment of the petitioner at the relevant time. 7. If the impugned Labour Court award itself is taken into consideration, the Labour Court too had assigned the same reason that merely an oral testimony of the employer, which was recorded before the court below, where the fact of respondent no.2 being a workman, being an admitted fact, the Labour Court has rightly observed that the action, which was taken as against the respondent no.2/workman was in violation of the standing orders and the provisions contained under Section 6N and he has also taken into consideration the fact and recorded the reasoning, that the female employees, did later registered a criminal complaint, in which there was no statement recorded by them against the workman and the final report was submitted, hence no criminal proceeding was even initiated against respondent no.2. Hence, the Labour Court has held that dispensing the services of the workman and that too without conducting the disciplinary proceedings, which was the fact admitted by the evidence adduced by the petitioner apparently it suffered from non-compliance of the provisions of Section 6N and hence, the Labour Court while answering the reference in favour of the workman had directed the reinstatement of workman into the services alongwith 50% back wages, as well as the cost of the proceedings, which were held before the Labour Court, to the tune of Rs.1,000/-. 8. On institution of this writ petition on 22.06.2007 before this Court ultimately, the order sheet reflects that there was an interim order granted on 25.06.2007, subject to the condition of complying with the provisions of Section 17 B of the Industrial Disputes Act, but later on since the respondent no.2/workman had not appeared in the proceedings of the writ petition, he was directed to be served by publication, by an order of 18.12.2017 and an affidavit of service has been filed by the petitioner, hence, it will be deemed that respondent no.2, was served by way of a substitutive mode of service by way of publication, but still he has not put in appearance. Hence, the writ petition is being heard finally. 9. Hearing the proceedings in the absence of the workman, though apparently he has been sufficiently served with the notices, does not entail an automatic determination of an issue in favour of the petitioner employer. The absence of the respondent no.2 would still entail an appreciation of the writ petition, itself exclusively on its merit. In view of the admitted stand which had been taken by the petitioner/employer itself before the court below, these are the admitted facts:- (i) That the workman was his employee with effect from 01.01.1986, hence, I am of the view that there was a relationship of master and servant existing between the petitioner and respondent no.2. In view of the admitted stand which had been taken by the petitioner/employer itself before the court below, these are the admitted facts:- (i) That the workman was his employee with effect from 01.01.1986, hence, I am of the view that there was a relationship of master and servant existing between the petitioner and respondent no.2. (ii) The action of termination of services on 23.08.1992, since was as a consequence of the incident of misbehaviour which was alleged, which was an incident of 22.08.1992 and looking to the time gap between the date of incident and the date of action impugned taken, the entire action apparently was in violation of principles of natural justice because once it is a dispensation of service, which is punitive and stigmatic in nature on the ground of misconduct, it could have been done only after resorted to the process, which has been provided by the standing orders of conducting the disciplinary proceedings against the workman and its then only the services of the workman could be dispensed with. (iii) Apart from it further the findings, which has been recorded by the labour court in its award, it had revealed that the subsequent registration of the FIR, has been decided in favour of the workman by submission of the final report in view of the statement, which was made by the victims, who are allegedly to have suffered from the atrocities of the workman and that itself would entail that in fact even on the criminal side also no offence, as such was made out against the respondent no.2/workman. 10. In view of the aforesaid facts that the finding, which has been particularly recorded in para 9 and 10 of the impugned award which is under challenge before this Court, the learned Labour Court and rightly so, after appreciating evidence and the findings, which has been recorded in the impugned award dated 13.05.2003, has exclusively come to the conclusion that no disciplinary proceedings was ever conducted or concluded, even in accordance with the statement recorded by the employer and hence, an employee, who has been wrongly dispensed with the services as per my opinion cannot be made to suffer on account of an inaction or an arbitrary action of an employer of dispensing the services and that too without recourse to the process of law. In that eventuality, the award rendered by the Labour Court on 13.05.2003, directing the reinstatement of the workman with 50% back wages is quite logically inferred by the Labour Court, after considering and a rightful appreciation of impact of the provisions of Section 6N and the evidence placed on record and hence I am of the view that the award dated 13.05.2003, does not suffer from any apparent error, which calls for any interference in the exercise of my extra ordinary supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition lacks merits and the same is accordingly, dismissed.