:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1325 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1325 OF 2009 WRIT PETITION NO. 1325 OF 2009 M/s. Automats (India) ..Petitioner versus Sunil Pol ..Respondent Mr. Dilip N. Mandavia for the Petitioner. Mr. R. V. Sankpal for the Respondent. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. CORAM : S. A. BOBDE, J. DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2009 DATE : 18TH MARCH, 2009 P.C. P.C. P.C. . The petitioner has challenged the Order of the Third Labour Court, Mumbai dated 12.8.2008, rejecting his application under Rule 26(2) of the Industrial Disputes (Bombay) Rules, 1957, for setting aside the exparte award. 2. The Labour Court has rejected the application on the ground that the earlier official of same company stated to the Bailiff that the addressee had been changed. Eventually the Labour Court therefore caused a notice to be served by RPAD at the address and RPAD was refused. The Labour :2: Court proceeded exparte in the circumstances. According to the Labour Court, which heard the matter under Rule 26(2), this was a good reason. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner however submitted that the endorsement of refusal cannot be attributed to the petitioner company since the petitioner company had stopped functioning at that address. However, nowhere does it appear from the record that the petitioner company made out this case, viz. that none of its officers were present when the registered post was delivered at the said address and that they did not state to the Bailiff that they were refusing service. Merely because on the earlier date some official of the company stated that address had been changed it can’t be assumed without proof that it was changed and that the subsequent letter was not refused by the official of the company. 4. The question whether service has been properly effected at the proper address, is a matter which is left to the discretion of the Court and unless it is shown that the court issued notice at the wrong address or some such defect, the order is not liable to be interfered with. In the present :3: case, the petitioner has not averred that on the second occasion also the court issued notice at the same address where the company had stopped doing business. In fact the learned counsel submitted that he has not taken any inspection of the record and proceedings before the Labour Court which pertain to service and is therefore not in a position to make any positive statement. In the circumstances, the petition is dismissed. (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.) (S. A. BOBDE, J.)