The court emphasized the need for honest and reliable averments in a recall application and highlighted the responsibility of the respondent to provide a correct address for communication and the duty to give notice of the firm's dissolution.

JUDGMENT :

Order on Civil Misc. Recall Application No.8 of 2019.

1. The present recall application has been preferred by the applicant/respondent, Manager M/S Milton Glass Industries, Girdhar Ganj, Firozabad in First Appeal From Order No.4007 of 2012 for recalling the order dated 17.05.2019.

2. The facts, in brief, are that the claimants/appellants have preferred the First Appeal From Order No.4007 of 2012 for quashing the order dated 10.09.2012 passed by the Commissioner, Employees Compensation Act, 1923/Assistant Labour Commissioner, Firozabad whereby the Commissioner has dismissed the claim petition of claimants/appellants.

3. The appeal was filed on 31.10.2012 and this Court issued notice to the applicant/respondent on 20.11.2012. The claimants/appellants took steps for service of notice on 04.12.2012. The Registry submitted a report on 04.03.2013/26.02.2014 that the notices have been sent on 04.12.2012 to the sole respondent by ordinary process fixing 15.03.2013 has not returned after service.

4. Subsequent thereto, this Court on 14.03.2014 passed an order directing the claimants/appellants to take fresh steps through registered post-A.D. for service of notice upon the respondent. The claimants/appellants have taken steps for service of notice upon the respondent by RPAD which was sent by the registered post to the applicant/respondent fixing 02.05.2014 on Appeal & Stay Application. Registry submitted a report dated 18.11.2014 in respect of service of notice that neither acknowledgment nor undelivered cover has returned after service of notice.

5. The Order-sheet also reveals that the Joint Registrar (J) (I) directed the Registry to place on record the postal receipt as proof of sending notice through the registered post within fifteen days and directed the matter to be listed thereafter. On the order of Joint Registrar (J) (I), the Registry submitted a report dated 19.11.2016/25.11.2016 that the postal receipts are not traceable. In such view of the fact, Registry requested the Court to issue a fresh notice if this Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. This Court on 05.02.2018 again issued a fresh notice to M/s Milton Glass Industries, the sole respondent. Thereafter, the claimants/appellants took steps for service of notice by RP/AD. The Registry submitted a report dated 07.04.2018 that neither any undelivered cover nor acknowledgment due has returned after service and also no one has put an appearance on behalf of the applicant/respondent.

7. As nobody has put an appearance on behalf of the applicant/respondent despite service of notice upon the applicant/respondent, therefore, in view of Explanation II to Rule 12 of Chapter VIII of High Court Rules, service of notice was deemed to be sufficient upon respondents. Accordingly, Court proceeded ex parte against the applicant/respondent and heard the appeal on 11.01.2019. Later on, the appeal of claimants/appellants was allowed by judgment dated 17.05.2019 holding that the deceased was employed with the applicant/respondent and died during the course of employment. This Court remanded the matter to the concerned Commissioner to quantify the compensation.

8. The present recall application has been filed by the respondent (hereinafter referred to as applicant/respondent) in the present appeal on 03.07.2019 to recall the ex parte judgement/order dated 17.05.2019.

9. It is stated that after the order dated 17.05.2019 passed by this Court, the claimant/appellant appeared before the Commissioner and submitted the order of this Court. It is averred in para 5 of the affidavit filed in support of the recall application that Surendra Sharma who is a practising Advocate at Firozabad and looks after miscellaneous legal works of many industries situated at Firozabad was, somehow, present before the concerned Commissioner when the order dated 17.05.2019 was produced before the concerned Commissioner. It is further averred that immediately thereafter Surendra