JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - This petition by an employer is directed against an award dated February 17, 1983 given by the Labour Court, Ghaziabad as well as the recovery certificate issued pursuant thereto by the Deputy Labour Commissioner against the petitioner. 2. The petitioner is a proprietorship concern having its factory at Sahibabad, U.P. At the relevant time sixty seven workmen were employed in the said factory, including Ramesh Chandra Sharma, the Respondent No. 4 herein. By a notice dated November 30, 1981 the petitioners purported to terminate his services with effect from the same date giving him one month's wages in lieu of the notice. It appears that at the instance of the concerned workman the U.P. Government by an order dated October 30, 1982 referred the following dispute to the Labour Court, Ghazaibad, under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 : "Whether the services of Ramesh Chandra Sharma had been validly terminated by the employers on November 30, 1981 and, if not, to what relief was the workman entitled?" 3. On receipt of this order the Labour Court issued summons to the petitioners on December 8, 1982 by registered post along with registered post acknowledgement due card at the address given in the order of reference, namely, Messrs. Maharwar Engineering Works, 58-B, Site No. 4, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, fixing January 18, 1983. On that date, the Presiding Officer passed an order stating - `the employers are absent, the acknowledgement due card has rot been received back. The workman is present. Fix 3-2-1983 for hearing'. 4. On February, 3, 1983 Ramesh Chandra presented himself before the Labour Court, filed his written statement as well as an affidavit in support thereof. On behalf of the Management, however, no one appeared nor was any application filed for adjournment. The Labour Court noticed in the impugned award that the summons had been issued on December 8, 1982 to the Management at the address given in the order of reference passed by the State Government. More than a month had elapsed since then. On behalf of the Management, however, no one appeared nor was any application filed for adjournment. The Labour Court noticed in the impugned award that the summons had been issued on December 8, 1982 to the Management at the address given in the order of reference passed by the State Government. More than a month had elapsed since then. Under the circumstances, the Labour Court decided to proceed ex-parte in accordance with Rule 12 (9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1947 which provides that if the affidavit accompanying the written statement of the Union or workman is not rebutted by the employers the Labour Court or the Tribunal shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the facts stated in the written statement. Thereafter on February 16/17, 1983, the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court gave the award directing reinstatement of the concerned workman with effect from November 30, 1981 with benefit of back wages. Subsequently the said award was, under the directions of the State Government issued under Section 6 (3) of the UP Industrial Disputes Act, duly published. After the publication of the award, the workman sent a written notice to the employers at the same address which was given in the order of reference passed by the State Government demanding compliance with the aforesaid award. This letter was admittedly received by the employers. Instead of complying with the award, the employers instituted a evil suit No. 265 of 1983 seeking a declaration to the effect that the aforesaid award dated February 16/17, 1983 was illegal, wrongful and nullity as well as a permanent prohibitory injunction restraining the workman from executing the award. The sole ground on which both the order of reference as well as the award was challenged in the suit was that the reference as well as the award were published in Hindi and the English translation of the same as required by Article 348 (3) of the Constitution had not been published. Significantly there was not even a whisper in the plaint that the Management had not been served with any summons or notice by the Labour Court. In the suit the petitioner obtained an interim injunction on July 13, 1983 whereby the workman was restrained from executing the award. Significantly there was not even a whisper in the plaint that the Management had not been served with any summons or notice by the Labour Court. In the suit the petitioner obtained an interim injunction on July 13, 1983 whereby the workman was restrained from executing the award. The workman thereupon filed a First Appeal From Order in this Court being F.A.F.O. No. 444 of 1983 and he obtained an order in that appeal staying further proceedings in the suit as well as the operation of the injunction order. Meanwhile on account of the injunction issued by the trial court the Deputy Labour Commissioner had stayed his hands in the application filed by the workman under Section 6-H (1) claiming the benefits which had accrued to him under the aforesaid award as well as for the recovery of the same as arrears of land revenue. However, after the order of stay granted by the High Court in the First Appeal From Order the Dy. Labour Commissioner issued a recovery certificate dated August 12, 1983 for a sum of Rs. 9, 125/. 5. It was after the issuance of the recovery certificate that the petitioner filed this petition on September 7, 1983 challenging the award as well as the recovery certificate in the petition it is alleged that the petitioner had no information whatever of the proceedings before the Labour Court. The factory was lying closed since May 1982. The Management had earlier on account of recurring financial losses and non-availability of essential raw material given a notice to the State Government under Section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act intimating that the Management intends to close down the factory with effect from May 14, 1982. Copies of this notice are alleged to have been sent to the Labour Commissioner as well as Assistant Labour Commissioner and the Chief Inspector of Factories. It is further alleged in the petition that as more than 30 days had elapsed after the publication of the award when the Management came to know of the award upon the receipt of the aforesaid letter of the workman, it did not file any application before the Labour Court for setting aside of the award. The fact that the Respondent No. 4 was a workman was denied by the petitioner and it was asserted that he was performing duties and functions of super is nature drawing Rs. The fact that the Respondent No. 4 was a workman was denied by the petitioner and it was asserted that he was performing duties and functions of super is nature drawing Rs. 730/-as monthly wages and consequently he was not a workman within the meaning of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The order of reference as well as the award were thus wholly without jurisdiction. 6. A counter affidavit has been filed denying the aforesaid allegations and asserting that the Management had been validly served with the summons by the Labour Court which rightly proceeded under Rule 12(9) of the Rules to dispose of the case ex-parte. The Respondent No. 4 was not performing duties or functions of supervisory character and he was indisputably a workman entitled to raise an industrial dispute. 7. For the petitioner Sri Tarun Agarwal submitted that the impugned award is a nullity because no notice whatever was served on the Management. It was urged that at the relevant time the factory washing closed and there was nothing to indicate that the summons issued by the Labour Court w-as duly served on the Management. That being so, it was urged, the award must be struck down as completely void and ineffectual in law. 8. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find no merit in the above contention. In the impugned award it is categorically stated that summons had been issued to both the parties on December 8, 1982 at the addresses given in the order of reference. The address given in the order of reference is exactly the same which was given in the workman's notice sent to the Management in April 1983 demanding the amounts awarded to him under the impugned award. The Management admittedly received this notice. Further, with the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the workman a letter issued by the Labour Court in response to a query addressed by the workman has been annexed which states that by means of a registered letter No. 1260, dated December 8, 1982 notices had been issued to the Management at their address, namely, 58-B, Site No. 4, Industrial Area, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad. The registered letter was sent along with an due card. The acknowledgement due card beaming No. 057, date December 16, 1982 returned after service was available on record of the case. The registered letter was sent along with an due card. The acknowledgement due card beaming No. 057, date December 16, 1982 returned after service was available on record of the case. In the main counter affidavit also the workman has categorically stated that summons had been duly issued and served on the petitioner at the aforesaid address. In addition to this material. I find that there is a conspicuous absence of any allegation or even hint in the plaint of the aforesaid suit filed by the petitioner suggesting that the award had been made without any notice to the Management. If the petitioner had really not been served, the absence of notice would have been the first ground of challenge in the suit. I, however, find that the Management did not allege want of notice in the very first proceedings that it launched after the receipt of the notice of the workman claiming the dues under the award. Not only this but the petitioner did not approached neither the Labour Court nor even this Court immediately after coming to know' of the award. As mentioned above, the Management had come to know' of the award, according to them, for the first time in April, 1983. This petition was, however, filed in September, 1983 i.e. after a lapse of 5 months- Further, the petitioners could also have approached the Labour Court itself even after the publication of the award vide the decisions in the case of Satnam Verma v. Union of India, reported in AIR 1985 SC 294 and Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal and others, reported in AIR 1981 SC 606 . Its failure to do so makes its case that it had not been served with the summons issued by the Labour Court highly suspect. 9. In this state of things I have no hesitation in holding that the place of the petitioner that the award was made without any notice to him has no merit and must be rejected. The facts and circumstances clearly point to the conclusion that the Management had been vapidly served with the notices of the adjudication case. 10. 9. In this state of things I have no hesitation in holding that the place of the petitioner that the award was made without any notice to him has no merit and must be rejected. The facts and circumstances clearly point to the conclusion that the Management had been vapidly served with the notices of the adjudication case. 10. The next submission of the learned counsel was that the Management had served a notice of closure under Section 25-FFA of the Industrial Disputes Act stating that it would close down the factory with effect from May 14,1982 and the factory was in fact closed down with effect from that date. That being the position, the Labour Court ought not to have directed the reinstatement of the Respondent No. 4. 11. The submission is devoid of any merit. In the first place in the counter affidavit which has been filed on behalf of the workman. It is alleged that the factory is still running. Secondly, even if it be assumed that the Management had duly complied with Section 25-FFA the effect would not be to bring about an automatic termination in the employment of the workman. Under section 25-FFF in case the closure is found to be valid, the Management is under-an obligation to pay a certain amount by way of compensation to the workman before terminating their employment. If, therefore, the Management thought that in view' of the closure applied for by it the services of the Respondent No. 4 were no longer required it had to comply with the provisions of Section 25-FFF before treating the employment of the concerned workman as having come to an end. Admittedly it has not done so. In this view of the matter I see no ground for quashing the part of the award which entitle the concerned workman reinstatement with the benefit of back wages. 12. The last submission of the learned counsel was that the Respondent No. 4 was not a workman as he was performing duties of supervisory nature. The issue sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is undoubtedly one of fact. The allegations made in the writ petition in this connection have been denied by the concerned workman. There is a serious dispute of facts between the parties on this issue. The issue sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is undoubtedly one of fact. The allegations made in the writ petition in this connection have been denied by the concerned workman. There is a serious dispute of facts between the parties on this issue. Further the petitioner had an opportunity of making this plea the subject matter of an issue before the Labour Court. It, however, failed to avail itself of that opportunity. In any case, on the material on the record, it is not possible to hold that the Respondent No. 4 was not a workman. 13. In the result, the petition fails and is dismissed but I make no order as to costs. The interim orders are vacated.