S. RAFAT ALAM, J. ( 1 ) IN the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner, power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. , has prayed for quashing of the order of the industrial Tribunal (III), U. P. , Kanpur, dated july 4, 2001 rejecting its application to recall the ex-parte award dated January 17, 2000 and also for quashing of the ex-parte award dated January 17, 2000. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the petitioner and also the learned counsel appearing for the workman respondent No. 2 who has also filed caveat. ( 3 ) IT appears that an industrial dispute in respect of termination of service of respondent no. 2 was referred to the Tribunal for adjudication under Section 4 (k) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was registered as Adjudication Case No. 177 of 1999. The learned Tribunal accordingly issued summons to the parties calling upon them to file their statement and October 15, 1999 was fixed for their appearance. The respondent workman appeared on the date and filed his statement, but the petitioner did not appear nor filed any written statement. The matter was thereafter fixed on several dates, i. e. November 15, 1999, November 29, 1999, December 8, 1999 and on December 16, 1999 but the petitioner did not appear on any date and, therefore, the tribunal ordered to proceed ex-parte and accordingly by the impugned award dated january 17, 2000, held that the order of termination of the workman dated August 10, 1998 is illegal and accordingly gave the award in favour of the workman. The aggrieved petitioner moved this Court by filing Civil misc. Writ Petition No. 25522 of 2000 which was disposed of on May 16, 2001 with the following order:"the petitioner can file an application before respondent No. 1 to recall the said order on this ground. If the petitioner submits an application to recall the order, it shall be entertained by respondent No. 1 and shall be disposed of on merits after affording opportunity to the petitioner and respondent no. 2 preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 has taken proceedings for execution of the award. It is open to the respondent No. 1 to pass an appropriate interim stay order till the restoration application is decided. 2 preferably within six weeks from the date of presentation of the application. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that respondent No. 2 has taken proceedings for execution of the award. It is open to the respondent No. 1 to pass an appropriate interim stay order till the restoration application is decided. " ( 4 ) THE petitioner thereafter moved an application under Rule 16 (2) before the learned tribunal for setting aside the ex-parte award, which has been rejected by the impugned order dated July 4, 2001. ( 5 ) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner strenuously contended that the alleged notice was never served on the petitioner Corporation and, therefore, he could not appear in the proceeding. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for workman respondent No. 2, submitted that notices were issued through registered post and the report of the Post office, Chakarpur, Kanpur was filed before the tribunal whereupon the Tribunal while disposing of the restoration application, has found that the petitioner had been served with notice and inspite of that he did not appear. He, however, during the course of argument, conceded, that if this petition is allowed and the ex-parte award is set aside, in that event, the tribunal may be directed to decide the reference on merit within the time limit fixed by this Court. ( 6 ) IT is not in dispute that the notices were issued under registered post but the acknowledgment due was never received back after service, in the absence of which, in my opinion, it is difficult to hold that the petitioner deliberately did not appear inspite of notice. The certificate given by the Post office can also not be relied as the person who issued the certificate or the Postman who served, was not examined nor their affidavits were on record which can lead to the conclusion that the petitioner Corporation was duly served. The petitioner is a public sector Corporation under the authority of the Central government and is registered under the companies Act and is wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India. Therefore, there appears to be no reason for the petitioner not to appear in the proceeding inspite of service of notice. The petitioner is a public sector Corporation under the authority of the Central government and is registered under the companies Act and is wholly owned and controlled by the Government of India. Therefore, there appears to be no reason for the petitioner not to appear in the proceeding inspite of service of notice. ( 7 ) THE Tribunal while disposing of the application for setting aside the ex-parte award under Rule 16 (2), did not appreciate that there is no sufficient and conclusive evidence to the effect that the notices were actually served on the petitioner. It is well settled legal position that when sufficient cause is made out for non-appearance on the date fixed, the ex-parte order should normally be recalled or set aside and the matter be decided on merit after giving due opportunity to all the parties. In the case in hand, in my view, the cause shown was sufficient and there was no contrary evidence to record a conclusive finding about the service of notice. Therefore, the Tribunal erred in rejecting the application for setting aside the ex-parte award. In this view of the matter, the order of the Tribunal dated July 4, 2001 rejecting the application under Rule 16 (2)and also the ex-parte award dated January 17, 2000 deserve to be set aside. ( 8 ) IN the result, the petition succeeds and is allowed. The impugned order dated July 4, 2001 and the award dated January 17, 2000 contained in Annexures 1 and 2 respectively, are hereby quashed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to decide the matter afresh. The petitioner and the workman respondent No. 2 are directed to appear before the Tribunal within four weeks from today along with a certified copy of this order. This Tribunal thereafter shall fix date for hearing and shall decide the matter expeditiously, but not later than six months. Learned counsel for both the parties have made a statement before this court that they shall appear before the tribunal on each and every date and will not seek unnecessary adjournment. .