JUDGMENT : 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Award dated 02.09.2006 passed by the respondent No. 1, Presiding Officer, Labour Court - I, Kanpur published on 20.11.2006. A further prayer has been made for quashing of the order dated 19.03.2008 passed by the respondent No. 1 rejecting the Recall Application of the petitioner on the ground that it has been filed after thirty days and after thirty days no such application can be entertained as the Labour Court becomes functus officio. 2. The counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kendriya Vidyalaya Sanghtan Versus R.V. Palde and others, 2001 (10) SCC 534 wherein a similar case the Labour Court has rejected the Recall Application as it was not moved within thirty days from the publication of Award in government gazette. The appellant challenged the refusal of the Labour Court to entertain the Recall Application against the ex-parte Award, the writ petition was rejected by the High Court also. The Supreme Court set aside the decision of the High Court on the ground that in similar matter in Anil Sood Versus Presiding Officer, Labour Court and others, (2001) 10 SCC 534 it has already held that the Labour Court does not become functus officio after making an ex-parte Award and that an Award without notice would be a nullity. The Supreme Court set aside the order of the High Court as well as the decision of the Labour Court rejecting the Recall Application. A direction was issued to the Labour Court to dispose of the matter on merits. 3. The learned counsel for the Respondent No. 2 has pointed out page 55 of the impugned Award dated 02.09.2006 wherein the respondent No. 1 has mentioned in paragraph - 2 of the Award that summons had been duly served upon the Employer and even thereafter no appearance was put in nor any written statement was filed. He has also pointed out paragraph - 10 on page 8 of the writ petition where the petitioner has submitted that some person on behalf of the petitioner had received the notice without making any signature and affixing any stamp on the said notice and on this presumption the Labour Court has found that service was sufficient upon the petitioner, the Respondent No. 1 thereafter proceeded ex-parte. 4. 4. The learned counsel for the respondent No. 2 has also placed reliance upon a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Harjinder Singh Versus Punjab State Warehousing Corporation reported in 2010 (3) SCC 192 and a judgment rendered in M/s. Kanpur Plasti Pack Ltd. Versus Teekam Singh and others, 2017 (6) ADJ 328 regarding the merits of the controversy. 5. It is evident from a perusal of the Award that same has been passed on the assumption that notice was duly served upon the Employer. The application for recall moved by the Employer stating therein that after the Award was published on 18.11.2006 the first information that petitioner derived of the same was only through letter of recovery issued by the Additioinal Labour Commissioner, Kanpur Region, Kanpur on 05.07.2007. In the application they had submitted that summons were never served upon any duly authorized person. Summons also did not contain name of the person who had received it nor any seal was affixed thereon showing that it has been received in the office of the Employer. 6. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the application for recall of the Award dated 02.09.2006 has been rejected without considering the same on merits only on the ground that after the Award has been passed the Labour Court becomes functus officio. By the order dated 19.03.2008 the respondent No. 1 has refused to look into the evidence produced by the Employer in support of the Recall Application. 7. The order dated 19.03.2008 passed on the Recall Application moved by the petitioner is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to consider afresh the Recall Application and all documentary evidence and other relevant evidence to be produced by the petitioner before it in support of his contention that summons were never received on any person authorized to receive the same and a wrong finding has been given by the Labour Court in its award dated 02.09.2006 regarding the service of summons on the Employer. 8. Let the Recall Application be considered afresh and appropriate orders be passed thereon by the Respondent No. 1 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Respondent No. 1. 9. 8. Let the Recall Application be considered afresh and appropriate orders be passed thereon by the Respondent No. 1 within a period of six weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the Respondent No. 1. 9. The amount already deposited by the Employer in High Court in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court shall be released in favour of the petitioner. But the same shall be deposited before the Labour Court and the said amount shall be subject to the final decision passed on the controversy by the Labour Court. 10. The award of the Labour Court dated 02.09.2006 shall be kept in abeyance and shall abide by the final decision to be taken on the Recall Application by the Respondent No. 1. 11. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed off.