g. In the Order dated 14.06.2013 of the Commissioner, it is noted a Notice dated 13.02.2013 was issued by the Commissioner under the Employees’ Compensation Act, 1932, (hereinafter referred to as the 'Commissioner' ) to the Transport Agency, of which the Appellant herein, is the Sole Proprietor. The initial Notice was received but signatures on receipt of the same were refused to be given. The second summons were issued on 21.03.2013 through speed post and dasti and a Report was filed with an affidavit stating that when the representative went to the address of the Transport Agency, they met one Mr. Sushil, who gave his introduction as brother of the owner of the Transport Agency but refused to receive the summons. It is stated that the third summons were issued on 15.04.2013 through a process server who reported that one Mr. Sanjay Kumar, who introduced himself as the worker in the Transport Agency was present at that time and he received the summons but did not give his signatures. Since summons were issued from time to time but the same were not received/accepted by the Appellant herein, the Commissioner proceeded ex-parte and decided the case on merits. Vide Order dated 14.06.2013, the Commissioner
