The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside a common order passed by the Labour Court, Raigarh, which had dismissed applications to recall an ex parte award. The High Court held that if a party shows sufficient cause for their absence, the Labour Court loses the jurisdiction to proceed ex parte and must necessarily exercise its power to set aside such an award to ensure the principles of natural justice.
Background
The case originated from a statement of claim filed by a workman, Umesh Kumar Chauhan, against Superior Fire and Security Services (SFSS) and Jindal Steel and Power Limited. Chauhan alleged that he was employed as a Deputy Security officer since December 2008 and was illegally terminated on November 20, 2020, on the grounds of being underweight. He claimed to have completed 240 days of continuous service and alleged a violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
During the proceedings (Case No. 01/ID Act/2022/Ref.), the employers were proceeded against ex parte on August 17, 2022. Subsequently, on December 10, 2022, the Labour Court passed an award holding the termination illegal and directing reinstatement without back wages.
The appellants contended they only became aware of the award on March 29, 2023, after receiving a copy via registered post. They subsequently moved applications under Rule 10B(9) read with Rule 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957, and Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex parte award. These applications were dismissed by the Labour Court on July 25, 2025, leading to the present appeals (MA No. 179 of 2025 and MA No. 177 of 2025).
Arguments of the Parties
The appellants argued that the Labour Court’s procedure on August 17, 2022, was “wholly irregular.” They pointed out that earlier that day, the court had recorded that the service report was awaited and fixed the matter for September 8, 2022. However, at 5:00 PM on the same day, the court took up the matter again at the request of the workman’s counsel and declared the appellants ex parte based on a postal track report. The appellants maintained that no notice was ever served upon them.
Counsel for Jindal Steel and Power Limited further argued that the respondent was never their employee and that the company was not even a necessary party, yet an award was passed against them without a hearing.
Conversely, counsel for the respondent (workman) submitted that the respondent was duly employed and that the Labour Court’s order was correct and required no interference.
Court’s Analysis
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru examined the order sheets and observed a significant procedural lapse. The Court noted that while the Labour Court initially decided to wait for a formal service report, it reversed this stance later the same day without “categorical satisfaction that the notice was duly served.”
The Court referred to Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which defines service by post. It noted:
“The presumption of service is, therefore, conditional upon proof of proper dispatch… In absence of a confirmed service report and without recording a categorical satisfaction that the notice was duly served… the learned Labour Court could not have invoked the presumption of deemed service.”
Citing the Supreme Court’s decision in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others (1980), the Court emphasized:
“If there was sufficient cause shown which prevented a party from appearing, then… the Tribunal will have had no jurisdiction to proceed and consequently, it must necessarily have power to set aside the ex parte award.”
Justice Guru observed that proceeding ex parte on the same day the court acknowledged the service report was awaited resulted in a “denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing.” The Court stressed that adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act involves “determination of valuable rights” and that natural justice must be scrupulously followed.
Decision
The High Court set aside the common order dated July 25, 2025, and allowed the applications to set aside the ex parte award. The matter has been remitted to the Labour Court, Raigarh, for fresh consideration. The parties are directed to appear before the Labour Court on April 29, 2026, for an expedited disposal on merits.
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur
- Case No.: MA No. 179 of 2025 and MA No. 177 of 2025
