JUDGMENT 1. - The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner to quash the judgment dated 22.4.2008 whereby an application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to quash the ex-parte award dated 11.10.2004 passed by the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Balotra in Case No.WC/F/20/2003 was rejected whereby an award of Rs. 4,20,000/- alongwith 20% interest was passed and penalty of Rs. 2,10,000/- was imposed against the petitioner. 2. As per the brief facts of the case, the son of the respondents nos. 3 and 4 late Sh. Prem Singh was working upon the crusher plant of the petitioner and died on account of serious injuries sustained to him when he was working in the plant. A claim petition under Workmen Compensation Act was filed by the respondents nos. 3 and 4 - parents of the deceased Prem Singh in which in spite of service through registered post, the petitioner - owner of the crusher did not appear before the Commissioner but his Manager filed a reply in which accepted the fact of death of Prem Singh upon the plant due to injuries sustained to him. After considering the entire evidence, the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Balotra passed an award to pay compensation in favour of parents respondents nos. 3 and 4 under the Act of 1923 on 11.10.2004. The petitioner moved an application for setting aside the ex-parte award in the month of Dec., 2004. The Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation, Balotra rejected the application vide order dated 22.4.2008 while giving finding that in spite of service of notice, the petitioner employer did not appear and its Manager filed reply in which he did not dispute the fact of incident in which son of respondents nos. 3 and 4 Prem Singh died. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that notice was not served properly upon the petitioner, therefore, ex-parte award was to be quashed upon the application filed by the petitioner but the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Balotra but he has arbitrarily rejected the application without considering the ground taken by him in the application in right perspective, therefore, the order dated 2.4.2008 may kindly be quashed. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents nos. 3 and 4 vehemently submits that son of the respondents nos. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondents nos. 3 and 4 vehemently submits that son of the respondents nos. 3 and 4 was only 20 years of age and admittedly, he was working as employee upon the cursory of petitioner when incident took place for which FIR was also registered and that fact is not in dispute, therefore, obviously, under the provisions of the Act of 1923, the Commissioner has rightly passed an award along with penalty against the petitioner, therefore, no interference is called for in the award impugned. The learned counsel for the respondent further argued that in spite of service of notice, the petitioner employer did not appear before the Commissioner but his Manager appeared and filed its reply. In view of the above fact it is submitted that there was no question for the Commissioner to allow the application filed by the petitioner for quashing ex-parte award passed against him, therefore this writ petition may kindly be dismissed. 5. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, I have perused the entire writ petition as well as the reply and orders impugned in this writ petition. Admittedly, the notices were sent to the petitioner through registered AD but the petitioner after signing upon the AD rubbed all the signatures and refused to take notice and, did not put appearance before the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Balotra to contest the prayer for compensation, therefore, obviously there was no option for the Commissioner except to proceed ex-parte to decide the claim petition filed by the respondents nos. 3 and 4. It is also very material to mention here that a reply was filed by the Manager of the plant Joga Ram, who was party in which Joga Ram did not dispute the fact of occurrence in which son of the respondents nos. 3 and 4 Prem Singh was died. 6. In view of the above, I am of the opinion that petitioner himself guilty for not participating in the proceedings in spite of service of notice, therefore, the learned Workmen's Compensation Commissioner, Balotra has rightly rejected the application filed by the petitioner to quash the ex-parte award. 7. In view of the above, no interference is called for in this writ petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Hence, the writ petition is hereby dismissed.Writ Petition dismissed. *******