JUDGMENT : Rajiv Narain Raina, J. By this common order, both the aforementioned writ petitions shall be decided together as controversy is same in those cases. Facts are being culled out from C.W.P. No. 6640 of 2010. Heard the learned counsel for the parties in the challenge to and in the defence of the impugned award dated 6.3.2009 in reference No. R/112/2005 passed by the Presiding Officer, I.T.-cum-L.C., Circle-I, Faridabad. The dispute referred for adjudication was whether the termination of the services of the workman was justified or not. 2. The management was ex parte before the Labour Court. The respondent-workman served as a Machine Operator with the petitioner factory from 2.5.1996 till 7.12.2004 when he was removed from service C.W.P. No. 6640 of 2010 following workers agitation. 3. The short controversy raised in this petition is that the management was not served with summons and was therefore proceeded against ex parte unlawfully. The learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on certain zimini orders passed by the labour Court in which several attempts were made to serve the petitioner after it shifted its factory. These attempts were made at the wrong address over a period spanning 16.12.2005 and 6.10.2008. The workman finally located the correct address of the petitioner-respondent and fresh notices were accordingly issued and on 16.12.2008 the registered A.D. Notice was received back with the report of refusal. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte and the case was fixed for ex parte evidence on 27.1.2009. 4. In order to resolve this issue based on pure facts regarding service of notice, this Court summoned the record of the labour Court through telephonic or telegraphic message vide order dated 26.4.2010. 5. Mr. Rohit Ahuja, learned counsel for the worker points out from the record that the address of the petitioner mentioned in the writ petition is 'AL Metals & Methods (P) Ltd. 54/5, Industrial Area, Site IV, near Atlas Cycle Industries, Sahibabad, Ghaziabad, UP through its MD Sh. Anil Kumar'. When the workman was called upon to furnish correct address/new address of the management, which address he furnished in his application dated 18.1.2007 (page 25 of L.C. Record) as “AL Metals & Methods (P) Ltd. DLF Plot No. 5 (near Atlas Cycle (I) Ltd) Sahibabad UP”. Service obviously could not be effected on the management on this address. Anil Kumar'. When the workman was called upon to furnish correct address/new address of the management, which address he furnished in his application dated 18.1.2007 (page 25 of L.C. Record) as “AL Metals & Methods (P) Ltd. DLF Plot No. 5 (near Atlas Cycle (I) Ltd) Sahibabad UP”. Service obviously could not be effected on the management on this address. However, the workman ultimately found and gave the correct address for service of summons which is the same as recorded in the memo of parties to C.W.P. No. 6640 of 2010 this petition. Summons dated 13.2.2008 were accordingly issued by the labour Court under its hand and seal. The report of the process server is that he repeatedly went every day from 15.2.2008 to 20.2.2008 but no one was found present to effect service of summons. Further unsuccessful attempts were made to serve the petitioner and finally the vital registered letter No. 2038 dated 20.11.2008 was returned to the Court on 16.12.2008 with the remark dated 27.11.2008 of the Postman: “Lene Se Inkar”. 6. Even thereafter proceedings were continued by the labour Court which has culminated in the ex parte award in favour of the workman holding that his removal from service was illegal. The learned Labour Court has granted reinstatement with full back wages to the respondent workman. 7. Mr. J.S. Bedi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that refusal to accept summons has been procured by the workman and therefore, the ex parte award should be set aside and the case remanded to the learned Labour Court to be decided afresh on merits. On the other hand, Mr. Ahuja, appearing for the workman submits that refusal is in law as good as service and therefore, no interference is called for especially when the award has attained finality and has been duly published in accordance with Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He supports his case on merits as well. The management was aware of the impending action through demand notice and participation in the conciliation proceedings with met with failure leading to reference of the dispute for adjudication. 8. This Court finds from the original record that the address of the petitioner which led to refusal was indeed the correct address where service could have been validly effected. The management was aware of the impending action through demand notice and participation in the conciliation proceedings with met with failure leading to reference of the dispute for adjudication. 8. This Court finds from the original record that the address of the petitioner which led to refusal was indeed the correct address where service could have been validly effected. There is no valid reason to disbelieve the C.W.P. No. 6640 of 2010 report of the Postman on the registered letter which was returned with the remarks-refusal to accept. Service is deemed to be effected. Thereafter, the management would remain at its peril in the ex parte proceedings. The petitioner does not dispute that it shifted base in May 2005 from District Faridabad, Haryana in District Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh. The petitioner pleads that the dispute was raised alleging illegal termination on 7.12.2004 by the respondent claiming himself to be the workman of the petitioner company but the petitioner does not say categorically that Dinanath was not its workman employed and serving at its industrial establishment at Faridabad. It is urged that the petitioner could not be served on account of incorrect address and therefore the impugned zimini order dated 16.12.2008 is based on incorrect assumption rendering the award bad. It is pleaded that the report of refusal was: totally unfounded as no correct address was filed and on the self same address the report of it being an incorrect address was already there on record. All this points out towards only one conclusion that the report of the refusal was stage managed, procured, concocted and doctored one having no authenticity at all and thus the impugned ex parte order or award are totally illegal in the eyes of law and liable to be set aside. Respondent No. 1 no where records the observation to the extent that the petitioner was served or he refused to receive the summons. The only observation which has come on record of the impugned award is, respondent did not come present and he was proceeded ex parte. 9. I am afraid, paragraph 3(i) of the petition where the above words appear have unfortunately been verified on legal advise in the verification clause at page 20 of the paper book. Therefore, no factual cognizance can be taken of the explanation offered by the petitioner with respect to service of summons. 9. I am afraid, paragraph 3(i) of the petition where the above words appear have unfortunately been verified on legal advise in the verification clause at page 20 of the paper book. Therefore, no factual cognizance can be taken of the explanation offered by the petitioner with respect to service of summons. Further, the case set-up by the petitioner on merits is based on returns of employer and employee share of contributions under the Employees State Insurance Act for the preceding 12 months from the C.W.P. No. 6640 of 2010 alleged date of termination i.e. 7.12.2004, placed on record as Annexures P- 6 to P-8, from the period 1.10.2004 to 31.3.2005 to show that respondent No. 2 was not an employee of the petitioner is not to my mind conclusive evidence of the master-servant relationship. There is no reason to disbelieve the statement of the worker appearing as W.W.1 deposing in line with the pleaded case or to discard the certificate produced Exhibit W-1 being a leave application dated 5.5.2004 signed by the Manager-Chatterjee with respect to Dinanath and found at page 33 of the L.C. record. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed. Let the award now be implemented forthwith.