JUDGMENT : 1. This petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the ex parte award, dated 19 April 1999, made by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 1 in Reference No. UIT/1/12 of 1999, under the provisions of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 2. Few facts giving rise to this petition are these: The respondent-workman raised an industrial dispute before the Conciliation Officer, Mumbai, on 29 August 1997 demanding reinstatement in service with continuity of service and back-wages from the petitioner-company. The petitioner-company participated in the conciliation proceedings which ended in failure. On the failure report of the Conciliation Officer a reference came to be made to the Tribunal being Reference No. CGIT/1/12 of 1999 for adjudication. It seems that the Tribunal issued notice to the company as well as to the workmen fixing the date of hearing on 12 March 1999. On 12 March 1999 the statement of claim was filed by the workman. There is some controversy whether the notice was served on the petitioner. According to the petitioner notice was not received by the petitioner and acknowledgement is not signed by the officer who was authorised to accept the service. On the other hand according the workmen notice was duly served. Be that as it may, the Tribunal thereafter fixed the matter on 15 April 1999, on which date the workmen filed an affidavit in support of his claim and an ex parte award came to be passed on 19 April 1999. The petitioner-company applied for setting aside the ex parte award by filing Miscellaneous Application No. 11 of 1999 which came to be dismissed by the Tribunal on 10 August 1999. The legality and correctness of these orders is questioned in the present petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. I have heard the petitioner at some length. Sri Cama strenuously contended that the notice was not served on the petitioner-company. Xerox copy of the acknowledgement was produced for my perusal. It is not clear from the xerox copy as to who has signed the acknowledgement on behalf of the company. The company seal is also not clearly visible. From the material as recorded it is difficult to conclude that company was properly served. In my opinion this is a fit case for setting aside the ex parte award. It is not clear from the xerox copy as to who has signed the acknowledgement on behalf of the company. The company seal is also not clearly visible. From the material as recorded it is difficult to conclude that company was properly served. In my opinion this is a fit case for setting aside the ex parte award. Accordingly the ex parte award, dated 19 April 1999, is quashed and set aside. Parties are directed to appear before the Tribunal on 14 September 1999. The Tribunal shall hear and decide the matter as expeditiously as possible and in any event not later than three months from today. 4. Petitioner-company is directed to pay costs of this petition to the respondent-workman quantified at Rs. 5,000. 5. Certified copy expedited.