IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMPMO No. 20 of 2003 Date of decision: 12.5.2008 Hans Rice Mills and another Petitioners. Versus Gulzar Masih and another. Respondents Coram The Hon’ble Mr.Justice Deepak Gupta, J. Whether approved for reporting?1 No. For the petitioners: Mr. Anuj Nag, Advocate. For the respondent. Mr. Naresh Kaul, Advocate. Per Deepak Gupta, J. This petition by the employer is directed against the order of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation, refusing to set-aside the ex-parte order granting compensation in favour of the claimants (respondents). Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the respondents filed a petition for grant of compensation in respect of death of their son, who was allegedly employed with the Hans Rice Mills, Dhariwal, District Gurdaspur (Punjab). The petitioners herein were proceeded against ex-parte and the Commissioner Workmen’s Compensation passed an award of Rs.1,68,915.00/- 1 Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the Judgment? Yes. alongwith interest in favour of the claimants. It would be pertinent to mention that the claim petition was filed on 25th March, 1997 and award was passed on 12th November, 1999. Thereafter the employer filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte proceedings on 22nd November, 2001. The main ground raised by the employer is that it was not served in the proceedings and therefore, ex-parte order should have been set aside. The learned Commissioner has refused to set aside the ex-parte order. Hence, the present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Normally, this Court would not like to shut-out a party from hearing and when an ex-parte decree has been passed even if any plausible cause is shown, the ex-parte order would normally set-aside. However, in the present case, it is apparent that the appellants were trying to avoid service of summons on one pretext or the other. The summons were sent at the address given in the application itself on at-least eight occasions. Summons were sent by registered posts as well as through the process serving agency. On all the Registered A.D.covers the report is that Ranjan Kumar is not available. Even with regard to the Hans Rice Mills, which was being sued through Ranjan Kumar, the same report is there. Hans Rice Mills may be a proprietorship firm but obviously there might be some clerks or other officials in this Rice Mill. None of them ever accepted the summons or gave the whereabouts of Ranjan Kumar. On a number of occasions the postal authorities left intimation at the address given but nobody came to the post office to receive the summons. There is no dispute that the address given is correct. The report on the basis of which the learned Commissioner proceeded against ex-parte against the petitioners is to the effect that the process server on 16th February, 1998 had gone to serve the summons. When the process server went inside the Mill then one person read the summons and said that his name is not Ranjan Kumar. He stated that his name was not correct and refused to accept the summons. It is the same Ranjan Kumar who has now filed the present petition. Here the petition is supported with the affidavit of Mr. Ranjan Kumar. The entire records shows that the petitioners with intention to delay the claim of their workmen, on one pretext or the other, were evading service and it was only one year after the passing of the order that they approached the Commissioner for setting aside the ex- parte order. I have heard Shri Anuj Nag, learned counsel for the petitioners, who has relied upon AIR 1992 Gauhati 121, Shila Nath Mallik and others vs. Balabhadra Sutradhar and others. In my view, this authority has no applicability to the facts of the case. In the present case the report of the process server was very clear that Ranjan Kumar had seen the summons and read the same. This report of the process server has been attested by the Tehsildar. There was no reason not to accept this report. The judgement cited was given in the peculiar facts of the case. In the present case the petitioners remained willfully absent despite knowledge of the proceedings against them. In the present case, I am of the considered view that keeping in view the large number of summons sent through registered post to the petitioners from the Court of the Commissioner, Workmen’s Compensation at the correct address and the reports thereon as well as the report of the process serving agency, it is obvious that the petitioner were aware and had knowledge of the proceedings and willfully remained absent. There is no merit in the petition, which is accordingly rejected. No order as to costs. 12th May, 2008 (Deepak Gupta), J. ™