JUDGMENT Dr. Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, J.: - The petitioners invoking supervisory jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, have challenged order dated 21.1.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Commissioner (under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923), Bhiwani (for short, the Commissioner) whereby application of the petitioners for setting aside the ex-parte Award dated 4.6.2007 (Annexure P-1) against them, was dismissed. 2. Hearing has been provided to the counsel for the petitioners while going through the paper book. 3. Krishan Pal Singh, husband of respondent No.1, was an employee of the petitioners. During the course of his employment with the petitioners, he died in a motor vehicular accident on 25.10.2003. Legal heirs of the deceased-employee had then filed a claim petition under the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 (for short, the Act). It was adjudicated by the Commissioner under the Act. The petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte. The Award in favour of the respondents granting Rs.3,89,280/- as compensation, Rs.1,55,712/- as interest and imposing Rs.1,94,640/- as penalty, was ordered. Respondent No.5 i.e. the insurance company with which the motor vehicle due to negligent driving of which the accident had allegedly occurred, notwithstanding the petitioners (respondents before the Commissioner) having been proceeded against ex-parte, had contested the matter tooth and nail. The Commissioner had made the insurance company liable to pay the amount of compensation as well as interest thereon. However, liability to pay the amount of penalty of Rs.1,94,640/- was fastened on the petitioners-employers. The Award was pronounced on 4.6.2007. An application for setting aside this ex-parte Award of 4.6.2007 was made by the petitioners-employers; it was dismissed on 21.1.2014. 4. It would be relevant to mention here that the insurance company which was the sole contestant before the Commissioner had unsuccessfully challenged this Award of 4.6.2007 even before this Court in FAO No.3218 of 2007 (Annexure P-2). 5. Plea of the petitioners was that they were neither served in the petition nor had any knowledge of pendency of proceedings. It is further claimed that even when service of the respondents was sought to be completed through substituted mode i.e. through newspaper, even then, they had no knowledge about pendency of the proceedings. It is claimed that they came to know about the decree against them only when summons in the execution petition were received by them. 6. It is further claimed that even when service of the respondents was sought to be completed through substituted mode i.e. through newspaper, even then, they had no knowledge about pendency of the proceedings. It is claimed that they came to know about the decree against them only when summons in the execution petition were received by them. 6. Counsel for the petitioners could not show as to how service to them earlier to order of ex-parte proceedings against them, should be taken to be non-existent. The petitioners rather have taken contradictory stand. On the one hand, they claim that no service was effected on them whereas, on the other hand, their plea is that service effected on them is due to collusion. 7. Mere allegation of collusion made by the petitioners-applicants-employers against beneficiaries of the Award or against the process-server or post man without any cogent evidence to sustain the same is highly insufficient to prove the contention of the petitioners. 8. There is yet another aspect of the matter. The petitioners were proceeded against ex-parte on 18.12.2006. The ex-parte Award was passed on 4.6.2007. The application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings was filed after a lapse of more than six years. The application for setting aside the ex-parte Award was rightly dismissed by the court below. 9. Keeping in view the totality of above facts and circumstances, affirming the impugned order (Annexure P-3), the petition being without any merit is dismissed. ---------0.B.S.0------------