CWP No. 4364 of 2010 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4364 of 2010 (O&M) Decided on : 05 -01-2011 Ram Kumar Budaniya ....Petitioner VERSUS The Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, Sirsa Circle, Sirsa and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER Present:- Mr. P.S.Jammu, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rajiv Godara, Advocate for respondents no.2 and 3 MAHESH GROVER, J The only ground that the petitioner has raised in this petition to challenge the ex parte award is that he was never served. A perusal of the award as also the extract of the proceedings dated 12.8.2009 reproduced at page 7 reveals that registered notices were sent to the petitioner. The petitioner denies the receipt of any such notice. To a pointed question as to what was the address given in the notice, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the impugned order (Annexure P-2) wherein the address of the petitioner given is the same as what has been given in the instant petition. Therefore, it is hard to accept that the petitioner did not receive the registered notices which were sent on the same very address which has been given in the instant petition. There is no variation in the address, consequently, the plea of the petitioner that he CWP No. 4364 of 2010 (O&M) 2 was never served cannot be believed for the simple reason that sending notices by registered post is an authentic mode of service and as many as three registered notices were sent to the petitioner on the same address. Therefore, the petitioner having failed to participate in the proceedings and having invited adverse orders, his plea that he is not liable as that he has nothing to do with the respondents who were alleged to be employees of respondent no.4 cannot be accepted as there is no material on record. The opportunity which the petitioner could have availed of by participating in the proceedings having not been utilized by him, this Court is loathe to go into the questions of fact which may be involved in the event of the petitioner's plea being believed. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. January 05, 2011 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge