JUDGMENT
S.S. Sudhalkar, J.
1. By this writ petition, the employer has challenged the award of respondent No. 1 in favour of the workman-respondent No. 2, in which respondent No. 2 was ordered to be re-instated in service without continuity of service and back wages to the extend of 50%.
2. The case of respondent No. 2 was that he was in service of the petitioner as a driver since January, 1993. However, all of a sudden on 17.9.1997, without any reason, his service was terminated. It is contended that the termination is in violation of the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as neither any notice was served on him nor any compensation was paid to him.
3. The petitioner did not appear before the labour court. In this petition, it is mentioned by the petitioner that termination of service of respondent No. 2 was not illegal or violative of the provisions of the Act. It is the
case of the petitioner that an incident took place on 27.8.1999. On that day, after the duty hours, respondent No. 2-Dilbag Singh, conductor Kuldip Singh and one Lalit Parshad, remained in the School premises and at about 7.30 PM respondent No. 2 alongwith the others took liquor and under the influence of liquor, (hey took out money from the pocket of Jagir Singh, who was chowkidar in the School, while he was sleeping. Respondent No. 2 and Kuldip Singh cut the hair and beard of Jagir Singh and they threw him from his cot on the ground 2-3 times. On Ihe next day, because of the hue and cry and because the incident would have taken religious turn, the petitioner and other members of the staff intervened. Respondent No. 2 and conductor were asked to leave the school. Jagir Singh was very much upset and he lodged a complaint with the S.H.O. Police Station Section 3, Chandigarh. It is fur-thercontended that because the incident was very delicate and involved religious sentiments, a compromise was arrived at between the parties, by the S.H.O. Respondent No. 2 admitted his guilt and felt sorry. It was only after he apologized for the incident that Jagir Singh gave it in writing that he did not want to pursue the case further. It has further been contended by the petitioner that the offence committed by respondent No. 2 was a very grave one and it was admitted by respondent No. 2 and thus, it was not felt necessary to hold any enquiry.
4. It is further contended that respondent No. 2 filed a demand notice, which was referred to the labour court for adjudication. The notice was received from respondent No. 1 butsince the petitioner was under the erroneous belief that educational institutes are not industry, the petitioner did not pay any heed to the summons issued by respondent No. 1 and, therefore, the award was passed ex-parte. Publication of the award was made but it came to the notice of the petitioner only in the first week of March, 2000 when a telephonic message was received from Ihe office of La-bour-cum-Conciliation officer directing the pelitioner to be present in the office.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that there are sufficient grounds for the petitioner for not remaining present before respondent No. 1 when it conducted the case under reference. He also argued that the incident was a grave one and that respondent No. 2 had admitted the offence and, therefore, no enquiry was necessary. Consequently, the termination of respondent No. 2 cannot be said to be violative of any of the provisions of the Act.
6. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and going through the papers produced in this case, we do not find any merit in this case. Firstly, the petitioner has chosen not to attend the court of respondent No. 1, though it had received notice. Whatever may have been its belief regarding non-maintainabil-ity of the reference before the Labour Court, it cannot be accepted that there was any legal or proper ground for remaining absent from the court of respondent No. 1. Therefore, the award of respondent No. 1 has no in-
firmity only because of respondent No. I proceeding ex-parte against the petitioner.
7. So far as admission of guilt and the necessity or non-necessity of the enquiry are concerned, it has to be seen that the alleged admission by respondent No. 2 is before a Police Officer. No doubt, this is not a criminal case and we are not brushing aside the alleged confession in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act, however, it has to be seen that the confession was not in response to any notice given by the petitioner. Nothing has come on the record to show that in what circumstances the confession was made. Moreover, a confession before a Police Officer cannot itself be treated as evidence by the labour court without it being legally proved and without it being proved as true. Had the enquiry been held, or any evidence led by the peti-tioner before the labour Court, the position could have been different.
In view of the above reasons, we do not find any merit in this writ petition and it is dismissed.
8. Petition dismissed.