ORDER : P. Naveen Rao, J. This writ petition is filed praying to grant the following relief : “…to issue a Writ of Certiorari calling for the records pertaining to I.D.No.3 of 2012 pending before Addl. Industrial Tribunal-cum-Addl. Labour Court, Hyderabad in passing orders dated 04.07.2013 with regarding validity of Domestic enquiry conducted by the respondents is legal valid and sustainable and to set aside the same by holding that the domestic enquiry held by the respondents against the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and violative of principles of natural justice and to pass...” 2. Heard Sri K.J.V.N. Pundareekakshudu, learned counsel for petitioner, learned senior counsel Sri C.R. Sridharan, representing Sri G.V.S. Ganesh, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 & 2, and learned Government Pleader for Labour, appearing for respondent No.3. 3. At the relevant point of time, petitioner was working as a Proof Reader in Eenadu Telugu Daily News Paper, Hyderabad. Alleging that petitioner committed misconduct, disciplinary action was initiated against him. On 21.08.2004, petitioner was terminated from service. Aggrieved by the order of termination, petitioner availed the remedy under Section-2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Central Act 14 of 1947), by raising industrial dispute before the Additional Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional Labour Court, Hyderabad. The said Tribunal numbered the dispute as I.D.No.3 of 2012. In the said dispute, the primary contention of petitioner was with regard to validity of the disciplinary enquiry conducted by the management. The Labour Court considered the following issue for discussion: “Whether the Enquiry Officer following the principles of natural justice, afforded reasonable opportunity and that the domestic enquiry is legal and valid?” 4. The Labour Court noticed from the record that petitioner was sent three notices to three different addresses given by him, informing that enquiry would be held on 16.03.2004. Petitioner was also informed by letter dated 26.02.2004 that Sri K. Hanumantha Rao was appointed as Enquiry Officer and Sri Y. Bannerji Sekhar, Assistant Manager was appointed as Management Representative to represent the Management in the enquiry scheduled on 16.03.2004. The Enquiry Officer noticed that out of three notices issued to petitioner by RPAD, petitioner received one notice and the other two notices were returned as “Refused”. Inspite of receiving the notice, petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the date fixed by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted ex-parte enquiry and submitted his report on 22.03.2004. 5. The Enquiry Officer noticed that out of three notices issued to petitioner by RPAD, petitioner received one notice and the other two notices were returned as “Refused”. Inspite of receiving the notice, petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the date fixed by the Enquiry Officer. The Enquiry Officer conducted ex-parte enquiry and submitted his report on 22.03.2004. 5. On going through the record of enquiry, the Tribunal was satisfied that due procedure was followed and principles of natural justice were not violated in conducting the enquiry. 6. In this writ petition, petitioner is challenging the validity of domestic enquiry conducted by respondents and prayed to set aside the order of the Tribunal dated 04.07.2013. 7. In the pleadings in the writ petition, petitioner has not pointed-out error in following the procedure by the Enquiry Officer and in assessing the issue by the Labour Court. 8. As consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble High Courts, the scope of judicial review against the decision of Industrial Tribunal is very limited. The Court cannot go into the manner of assessment of evidence on record and conclusions recorded by the Industrial Tribunal. The writ Court can correct the error of jurisdiction committed by the inferior Tribunal or when it exceeds the jurisdiction. The Court cannot enter into merits of the findings and record a finding different from the finding arrived by the Industrial Tribunal. Therefore, the burden is on the petitioner to show that the Industrial Tribunal erred in not following the due procedure or it exceeded its jurisdiction in rejecting the contention of the petitioner or the decision is palpably erroneous. No such plea was raised and pointed out by the learned counsel for petitioner. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on two judgments. The decision in Allahabad Bank and others Vs. Krishna Narayan Tewari, AIR 2017 SC 330 , stands in its own facts and do not come to the rescue of the petitioner. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in interfering with the procedure of conducting disciplinary enquiry, having found that enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence by defendants. In APSRTC and another Vs. The Hon’ble Supreme Court upheld the decision of the High Court in interfering with the procedure of conducting disciplinary enquiry, having found that enquiry was conducted without giving a fair and reasonable opportunity for leading evidence by defendants. In APSRTC and another Vs. N.V. Subbaiah and another, 2016 (5) ALT 354 , the learned single Judge was dealing with the reasons assigned by the Labour Court in ordering reinstatement into service with 50% of the back wages. In the facts of the case on hand, the said decision also does not come to the aid of the petitioner herein. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner sought to contend that when petitioner did not attend the enquiry on the date and time fixed by the Enquiry Officer, the Enquiry Officer ought to have adjourned the enquiry to another date and ought not to have closed the enquiry on the said date resulting in finalization of enquiry proceedings. No provision of the standing orders or any other decision of the employer is brought to my notice to point out that such is the procedure required to be followed by the Enquiry Officer. In the absence of any such statutory prescription or a decision by the employer that requires the Enquiry Officer to adjourn the enquiry to a later date, when the delinquent employee failed to appear on the date and time fixed for conducting enquiry, even though he received the notice informing the date of enquiry, the procedure adopted by the Enquiry Officer cannot be faulted. 11. Learned senior Counsel appearing for the respondents, relied on a decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.A.No.741 of 2003 dated 11.09.2011, where an identical issue was considered. The Division Bench considered the very same issue and rejected the plea raised on behalf of the employee. The Division Bench noticed as under : “Having failed to turn up in the afternoon of 06.10.1994, the workman cannot complain that an ex parte inquiry was held and that the documents marked through the management witness at such ex parte inquiry were not furnished to him. The conduct of the workman appears to be an attempt to irrational employment of the technicalities of procedural law on a misconception of the inherited legal process”. 12. The conduct of the workman appears to be an attempt to irrational employment of the technicalities of procedural law on a misconception of the inherited legal process”. 12. Having regard to the facts noted above, I do not see any error in the decision arrived at by the Industrial Tribunal, warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. The Industrial Tribunal is directed to proceed with the case by affording due opportunity to the petitioner. Miscellaneous petitions, pending if any, shall stand closed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.