Judgment 1. IN this application under Article 223 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays, inter alia, for a writ in the nature of Mandamus for quashing and/or setting aside the order No. 40 passed on December 7, 1988 by the 2nd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal which is Annexure 0 to the writ petition. 2. FROM the affidavit of service filed in Court, it appears that the respondents have been served with the copy of this application, but no one appears for any of the respondents when the matter is taken up for final hearing. The only question involved in this writ petition is whether the endorsement of a registered postal cover "refused" can be rebutted by the addressee of the communication by merely verbally denying the same and whether such verbal denial unaccompanied by any other evidence would rebut the presumption that the letter in question was tendered to the intended addressee. In the instant case, the petitioner states in the writ petition that it had, issued a charge sheet against the respondent No. 2 in respect of certain charges recited therein. It is stated in the petition that the charges were read over and explained to the workmen concerned and no reply having been given by the workmen concerned, a notice of enquiry was also intimated to the said workmen. As the workmen concerned refused to accept both the charge sheet and the notice of enquiry, the company, by way of abundant caution, issued the charge sheet and the notice of enquiry by registered post with acknowledgement due at the last know address of the workman concerned. Both the Envelopes were returned with the postal endorsement "refused". Ultimately a reference was made before the aforesaid Tribunal under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The issue being the legality or otherwise of the termination of service of the petitioner pursuant to the enquiry held ex parte. Before the learned Tribunal the petitioner company in its written statement urged the learned Tribunal to take up the point of service of the charge sheet and the notice of enquiry first before going into the merits of the enquiry. The learned Tribunal by the order impugned in the unit petition inter alia, held that the enquiry was not fairly and properly held, inter alia. The learned Tribunal by the order impugned in the unit petition inter alia, held that the enquiry was not fairly and properly held, inter alia. Inasmuch as neither the charge sheet nor the notice of enquiry was served on the workmen concerned. The learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that as the workmen concerned denied the service of either the charge sheet or the notice of enquiry on him it was incumbent upon the petitioner to examine the postal peon concerned who purported to deliver the said registered covers to the workmen concerned. The Tribunal was of the opinion that unless such evidence of service is produced by the company, service is not proved in the face of denial of such service of the workmen. On that basis, the learned Tribunal was pleased to hold that the enquiry having been held ex parte, violated the principles of natural justice and as such was not fairly and squarely held. It is against this order that the petitioner has moved the instant writ petition. The only question involved in this writ petition is whether a bare denial of service of a notice in a case where a registered envelope comes back with the postal endorsement "refused", will amount to rebuttal of the presumption that the notice was duly served. Section 27 of the General Clauses Act 1897 provides as follows : "where any (Central Act) or Regulation made, after the commencement of this Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post, whether the expression "serve" or either of the expressions "give" or "send" or any other expression is used, then unless a different intention appears, the service shall be deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting by registered post, a letter containing the document and unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post. " 3. SECTION 114 (f) of the Indian Evidence Act 1972, Illustration (f) provides as follows :- (f) : "that the common course of business has been followed in particular cases : in the case of Gujarat Electricity Board and another v. Atmaram Suraram Osami (1989 58 FLR 474 SC. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a like situation Were pleased to hold as follows : ". . . . . . . . . Their Lordships of the Supreme Court in a like situation Were pleased to hold as follows : ". . . . . . . . . . . . it was further pleaded that the respondent had refused to accept the registered letter and the same had been returned back by the postal authorities with an endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. In his rejoinder affidavit the respondent denied the aforesaid allegations and asserted that the letter was not tendered to him and he never refused to accept the registered cover and the postal endorsement was wrong and incorrect. Apart from denying the postal endorsement, the respondent placed no material before the Court in support of his pleading. In this view, we are of the opinion that the Division Bench was totally wrong in holding that no opportunity was afforded to the respondent to meet the case set up the Board that the letter dated April 24, 1974 was served on the respondent. No new plea had been raised by the Board before the Division Bench instead the plea relating to service of the aforesaid letter had already been before the learned Single Judge. " 4. THERE is presumption of service of a letter sent under registered cover, if the same is returned back with a postal endorsement that the addressee refused to accept the same. No doubt that the presumption is rebuttable and it is open to the party concerned to place evidence before the Court to rebut the presumption by showing that the address mentioned on the cover was incorrect or that the postal authorities never tendered the registered letter to him or that there was no occasion for him to refuse the same. The burden to rebut the presumption lies on the party challenging the factum of service. In the instant case, the respondent failed to discharge this burden, as he failed to place material before the Court to show that the endorsement made by the postal authorities was wrong and incorrect. More denial by the respondent in the circumstances of the case, was not sufficient to rebut the presumption relating to service of registered cover. We are therefore, of the opinion that the letter dated 24-4-74 was served on the respondent and he refused to accept the same. Consequently, the service was complete and the view taken by the High Court is incorrect. We are therefore, of the opinion that the letter dated 24-4-74 was served on the respondent and he refused to accept the same. Consequently, the service was complete and the view taken by the High Court is incorrect. " In the instant case also there was a bare verbal denial by the workmen concerned that he did not receive either the charge sheet or the notice of the enquiry purported to have been sent to him by registered post with Acknowledgement. Due which came back with the postal endorsement "refused". There is another significant aspect of the matter. As another industrial dispute was pending before another Industrial Tribunal when the purported order of dismissal was made, the company had to apply to the appropriate Tribunal for according approval to the action proposed under section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the rejoinder to the company's application under Section 33 (2) (b) the workmen concerned nowhere mentioned that the purported enquiry was in violation of the principles of natural justice, because of non-service of either the charge sheet or the notice of enquiry. For reasons stated above, this Court is constrained to hold that the learned Tribunal should have held that both the charge sheet and the notice of enquiry were duly served on the workmen concerned and that the enquiry was not held illegally on that score. 5. FOR the reasons stated above, this application must succeed and the order No. 20 passed by the learned 2nd Industrial Tribunal, West Bengal on December 7, 1988 is hereby set aside. Let the matter go back to the Tribunal forthwith for expeditious hearing of the main Reference. There will, however, be no order as to costs. 6. ALL parties to act on a Xerox signed copy of the operative part of the judgment to be supplied to the parties on the usual undertaking. Application allowed.