JUDGMENT Honble Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Shyam Narain, senior advocate assisted by Sri Sudhanshu Narain, learned counsel for the respondents. 2. This writ petition has been filed for quashing the award dated 3.4.2006, Annexure-7 to the writ petition passed by respondent No. 2 and award dated 16.12.2003 published on 30.4.2004, Annexure-1 to the writ petition. 3. Sri Shakti Swaroop Nigam, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from the perusal of the award it is clear that the award is an exparte award without any notice and opportunity to the petitioner. From the perusal of the finding recorded, it is clear that a registered notice was sent but the acknowledgement due was not returned back, therefore, the Court has presumed that service upon the petitioner is sufficient and the exparte order has been passed. Further only the claim of the workman-respondent on the basis of the written statement and the affidavit has been considered, therefore, in the eye of law, it cannot be said that it is an award to be in force. The learned counsel for the partitioner has placed reliance upon a judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Power Grid Corporation of India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal (III) U.P., Kanpur and another, LLJ 2002 Page 155. Taking support of the aforesaid judgment, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no dispute to the effect that notices were issued by registered post but as the acknowledgement due was never received back after service, in that circumstance, the Court has held that it is difficult to hold that the petitioner deliberately did not appear inspite of the notice. Further the petitioner has submitted that in view of Section 12 (9) of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which provides that if the affidavit of accompanying written statement of the workman is not rebutted by the employer, the Labour Court shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the fact stated in the written statement. But it cannot be thus construed to mean that the entire averments made in the affidavit without any documentary evidence have to be accepted in toto without examining the same judicially. The Labour Law being a welfare legislation may not require a strict procedure to be followed. But it cannot be thus construed to mean that the entire averments made in the affidavit without any documentary evidence have to be accepted in toto without examining the same judicially. The Labour Law being a welfare legislation may not require a strict procedure to be followed. As it has been held in Supreme Court case Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi v. The Employees of the Bharat Bank Ltd., AIR 1950 SC 188 , in such circumstances learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the award passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside and the petitioner be given an opportunity to be heard and the award should be passed on merit. 4. On the other hand Sri Sudhanshu Narain learned counsel states that as the registered notice was sent and that was not returned back, therefore, in view of Order V Rule 19 A of the C.P.C. the service upon the petitioner may be deemed to be sufficient and there was no occasion for the petitioner to assail that the award passed by the Labour Court is an exparte award. 5. I have considered the submissions made on behalf of the parties and have perused the record. From the perusal of the record, it appears that summons by registered post were sent to the petitioner but on the date fixed it was not returned after service or by refusal and no acknowledgement due was received. In such circumstances, the Labour Court has presumed that as the registered notice was sent and that has not been returned after service or by refusal, therefore, the presumption in law will be that it has been served. But from the perusal of the Order V which prescribes itself a procedure to be adopted upon service to the defendant or plaintiff. Rule 17 of Order V provides that where the defendant or his agent or such other person refuses to sign the acknowledgement, or where the serving officer, after using all due and reasonable diligence, cannot find the defendant, in his absence, serving officer shall affix a copy of the summons on the outer door or some other conspicuous part of the house in which the defendant ordinarily resides or carries on business or personally works for gain. Rule 18 provides that serving officer shall, in all cases in which the summons has been served under Rule 16, endorse or annex, or cause to be endorsed or annexed, on or to the original summons, a return stating the time and the manner in which the summons were served. Rule 19 provides that where a summons is returned under Rule 17, the Court shall, if the return under that rule has not been verified by the affidavit of the serving officer, and may, if it has been so verified, examine the serving officer. Rule 20 provides that where the Court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant is keeping out of the way for the purpose of avoiding service, or that for any other reason the summons cannot be served in the ordinary way, the Court shall order the summons to be served by affixing a copy thereof in some conspicuous place in the Court house, and if ultimately it is not served, an advertisement in two widely circulated newspapers has to be done. 6. From the perusal of the order passed by the Labour Court it appears that no such procedure has ever been adopted. The Labour Court has not taken into consideration the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure which is admittedly applicable to that effect. Further it has to be seen that as contended by the respondent that affidavit filed in their behalf has not been rebutted, therefore, the Labour Court was justified in making an award in favour of workman. In my opinion, inspite of the fact that there was no rebuttal of the affidavit, but the Labour Court while examining the said document and affidavit, should have exercised its judicial mind while passing the order. The same has not been done. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of view that the award passed by the labour Court is not sustainable in law and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to Labour Court for adjudication on merits after affording full opportunity to parties. It is also open to the parties to lead evidences accordingly. 7. In view of the aforesaid fact, I am of view that the award passed by the labour Court is not sustainable in law and is hereby quashed. The matter is remanded back to Labour Court for adjudication on merits after affording full opportunity to parties. It is also open to the parties to lead evidences accordingly. As the matter is very old, therefore, the Labour Court-I is directed to pass the award without granting any adjournment to any of the parties within a period of three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order before the Court. 8. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 9. No order is passed as to costs. ————