Judgment S.S.Nijjar, J. 1. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the record of the case. 2. The petitioner was appointed as Machineman with M/s K.S. Interplast Pvt. Ltd., Bahadurgarh, on monthly pay of Rs. 1800/- in the year 1994. On 02.06.1999, his services were terminated without complying with the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. On 08.07.1999, the appropriate Government referred the industrial dispute to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak, vide reference No. 367 of 2000. 3. The Management was proceeded ex parte as it did not appear before the Labour Court despite notice. On 17.08.2001, reference was answered in favour of the workman. He was directed to be reinstated in service with continuity of service and 30% back-wages. Two copies of the Award dated 17.08.2001 were forwarded to the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Panipat, for implementation of the same. It was published in the gazette on 22.04.2002. On 14.08.2002 the Deputy Labour Commissioner, wrote a letter to the Management directing them to be present on 26.08.2002 for implementation of the ward. On 25/26.09.2002, the Management filed an application before the Labour Court for setting aside the ex parte award dated 27.04.2001 and the order dated 17.08.2001. Notice of this application was sent to the petitioner. A detailed reply was submitted. By way of preliminary objection, it was stated that the application for setting aside the ex parte award is not maintainable as the Labour Court had become functus-officio. The Labour Court, by its order dated 01.10.2003 has set aside the ex parte order dated 27.04.2001 and the award dated 17.08.2001. The petitioner seeks issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 01.10.2003, Annexure P-3, passed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Rohtak. 4. The respondents have filed a written statement, it has been inter alia, pleaded that the award came to their knowledge only when they were called upon to implement the same by the District Labour Commissioner, Panipat. The Labour Court has held that the posting of a notice by registered post gives only rise to a rebuttable presumption that the same has been delivered. However, in the absence of the statement of the postman, it cannot be said that, in fact, the letter was delivered to the Management. The Labour Court has held that the posting of a notice by registered post gives only rise to a rebuttable presumption that the same has been delivered. However, in the absence of the statement of the postman, it cannot be said that, in fact, the letter was delivered to the Management. The Labour Court has rejected the submissions of the petitioner on the ground that the application for setting aside the ex parte award was not maintainable as the Labour Court had become functus-officio. In support of this conclusion, the Labour Court has taken note of the fact that there is no positive proof about the service of the notice on the Management. 5. Having considered the entire matter, we are of the considered opinion that the award rendered by the Labour Court setting aside the earlier ex parte award is wholly un-sustainable. It is not disputed that the award dated 17.08.2001, was published in the official gazette on 22.04.2002. The application for setting aside the ex parte award was not filed by the Management till 25.08.2002. Clearly, the application was beyond 30 days after the publication of the notice. In the case of Sangham Tape Company v. Hans Raj, 2004(6) S.L.R. 78, the Supreme Court after considering the relevant provisions, has held as follows:- "An industrial adjudication is governed by the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the act") and the rules framed thereunder. The rules framed under the Act may provide for applicability of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure. Once the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are made applicable to the industrial adjudication, indisputably the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 thereof would be attracted. But unlike an ordinary Civil Court, the Industrial Tribunal and the Labour Courts have limited jurisdiction in that behalf. An award made by an Industrial Court becomes enforceable under 17A of the Act on the expiry of 30 days from the date of its publication. Once the award becomes enforceable, the Industrial Tribunal and/or Labour Court becomes functus officio. 6. As noticed earlier, in the present case, the Management was proceeded against ex parte on 27.04.2001 and the ex parte award was delivered on 17.08.2001. It was duly published in the official gazette on 22.04.2002. The application for setting aside the ex-parte award was filed on 25/26.09.2002. 6. As noticed earlier, in the present case, the Management was proceeded against ex parte on 27.04.2001 and the ex parte award was delivered on 17.08.2001. It was duly published in the official gazette on 22.04.2002. The application for setting aside the ex-parte award was filed on 25/26.09.2002. At that time, the Labour Court had become functus-officio. Consequently, this writ, petition is allowed. Order dated 01.10.2003, Annexure P-3 is hereby quashed. The petitioner is at liberty to seek implementation of the a ward dated 17.08.2001, Annexure P-1, in accordance with law. No costs.