# Rituraj Textiles & General Indus. (P) Ltd v. Presiding Officer Labour Court

- **Citation:** (2022) 2 ILRA 443
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-11-16
- **Case number:** Writ-C No. 9414 of 2017
- **Bench:** Ajay Bhanot
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/rituraj-textiles-general-indus-p-ltd-v-presiding-officer-labour-court-47535
- **Pages:** 4

## Headnote

A. Labour Law - Principle of natural justice
- Applicability - Award passed ex-parte -
No service of notice to the employer -
Restoration application was rejected solely
on the ground of delay - Held, the learned
court below while passing the impugned
order neglected to consider the fact that the
petitioner was not served notice of the
proceedings and hence could not prosecute
the case - The applicant was prevented by
good cause from contesting the case on
merits. The impugned award was passed in
violation of principles of natural justice.
(Para 6 and 8)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:

## Text

2 All. Rituraj Textiles & General Indus. (P) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court (I)
 Ghaziabad & Ors.
443
may not come in the way of his securing
justice and the justice is not denied to the
litigant
by
reason
of
his
economic
disability, we do not find any reason to
entertain the present writ petition under
extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226
of
the
Constitution.
The
economic
disability of a litigant has been addressed
by the Apex Court by constitution of
Supreme Court Legal Service Committee
and Supreme Court Middle Income Group
Legal Aid Scheme. Once the channels for
addressing the economic disability of the
litigant has been set up by the Apex Court
and the litigants have been provided fair
opportunity to secure justice by providing
free legal aid under the various scheme and
the Act of 1987, the financial/economic
disability may not be a ground for bypassing the statutory alternative remedy
provided under the Armed Forces Tribunal
Act, 2007. The economic disability of a
litigant has already been addressed and the
institutional framework for securing justice
to litigants having economic disability have
already been put in place. It is always open
for the petitioner to approach the aforesaid
mechanisms to secure justice and to prefer
appeal before the Supreme Court. The
question that the remedy provided under
the statute by way of appeal before the
Apex Court, being not efficacious on the
ground of economic disability, is not
permissible unless the mechanisms under
the Legal Service Authority Act, 1987 and
the Supreme Court Middle Income Group
Legal Aid Scheme has been approached
and exercised by the petitioner in the case
of economic disability.

32. In the result, we do not find any
good reason to by-pass the statutory
alternative remedy provided under the
Armed Forces Tribunal Act, 2007. The writ
petition is dismissed on the ground of
statutory alternative remedy available to the
petitioner leaving it open for the petitioner
to file an appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in accordance with the
provisions of the Armed Forces Tribunal
Act, 2007.
----------
(2022)02ILR A443
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 16.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAY BHANOT, J.

Writ-C No. 9414 of 2017

Rituraj Textiles & General Indus. (P) Ltd.
 ...Petitioner
Versus
Presiding
Officer
Labour
Court
(I)
Ghaziabad & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Harish Chandra

A. Labour Law - Principle of natural justice
- Applicability - Award passed ex-parte -
No service of notice to the employer -
Restoration application was rejected solely
on the ground of delay - Held, the learned
court below while passing the impugned
order neglected to consider the fact that the
petitioner was not served notice of the
proceedings and hence could not prosecute
the case - The applicant was prevented by
good cause from contesting the case on
merits. The impugned award was passed in
violation of principles of natural justice.
(Para 6 and 8)
Writ petition allowed. (E-1)
List of Cases cited:
1. M/s Haryana Suraj Malting Ltd. Vs Phool
Chand; 2018 (16) SCC 567
444 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
2. Devyani Beverages Ltd. Vs Labour Court II,
Deputy Labour Commissioner; 2005 (6) AWC
6249 All

(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajay Bhanot, J.)

1. Matter is taken up on the revised
call. Sri Jamal Ahmad Khan, learned
counsel for the petitioner is present. None
appears on behalf of the respondents.

2. The petitioner has assailed the
award dated 24.12.2014 (published on
02.04.2016) and also the order dated
27.01.2017 rejecting the application for
recall of ex-parte award dated 24.12.2014.

3. The award was passed on
24.12.2016
and
was
published
on
02.04.2014. The learned labour court
dismissed the restoration application by the
impugned order dated 27.01.2017 solely on
the footing that the same had been filed
after 30 days.

4. The validity of a restoration
application filed after a period of 30 days
was examined in M/s Haryana Suraj
Malting Ltd. Vs. Phool Chand reported at
2018 (16) SCC 567. In M/s Haryana Suraj
Malting Ltd. (supra), it was held that the
power to restore a case dismissed for non
prosecution lay squarely within the ambit
of ancillary powers of the tribunal to do
justice:

"34. In case a party is in a position to
show sufficient cause for its absence before
the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set
ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal, in
exercise of its ancillary or incidental
powers, is competent to entertain such an
application.
That
power
cannot
be
circumscribed by limitation. What is the
sufficient cause and whether its jurisdiction
is invoked within a reasonable time should
be left to the judicious discretion of the
Labour Court/Tribunal.

35. It is a matter of natural justice that
any party to the judicial proceedings should
get an opportunity of being heard, and if
such an opportunity has been denied for
want of sufficient reason, the Labour
Court/Tribunal which denied such an
opportunity, being satisfied of the sufficient
cause and within a reasonable time, should
be in a position to set right its own
procedure.
Otherwise,
as
held
in
Grindlays[Grindlays Bank Ltd.v.Central
Govt. Industrial Tribunal, 1980 Supp SCC
420 : 1981 SCC (L&S) 309] , an award
which may be a nullity will have to be
technically enforced. It is difficult to
comprehend such a situation under law.

37.Merely because an award has
become enforceable, does not necessarily
mean that it has become binding. For an
award to become binding, it should be
passed in compliance with the principles of
natural justice. An award passed denying an
opportunity of hearing when there was a
sufficient cause for non-appearance can be
challenged on the ground of it being nullity.
An award which is a nullity cannot be and
shall not be a binding award. In case a
party is able to show sufficient cause within
a reasonable time for its non-appearance in
the Labour Court/Tribunal when it was set
ex parte, the Labour Court/Tribunal is
bound to consider such an application and
the application cannot be rejected on the
ground that it was filed after the award had
become
enforceable.
The
Labour
Court/Tribunal is not functus officio after
the award has become enforceable as far as
setting aside an ex parte award is
concerned. It is within its powers to
entertain an application as per the scheme
of the Act and in terms of the rules of
natural justice. It needs to be restated that
2 All. Rituraj Textiles & General Indus. (P) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer Labour Court (I)
 Ghaziabad & Ors.
445
the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a
welfare legislation intended to maintain
industrial peace. In that view of the matter,
certain powers to do justice have to be
conceded to the Labour Court/Tribunal,
whether we call it ancillary, incidental or
inherent."

5. By declining to entertain the
application for restoration of an exparte
award, the learned labour court was
misdirected in law. The impugned order
dated 20.01.2017 is in the teeth of the law
laid down in M/s Haryana Suraj Malting
Ltd. (supra).

6. The application for restoration
asserts that the petitioner-employer got
knowledge of the exparte order on
13.04.2016. It is further stated that no
notice was served upon the petitioneremployer prior to the impugned award.
The learned court below while passing the
impugned order neglected to consider the
fact that the petitioner was not served
notice of the proceedings and hence could
not prosecute the case.

7. The pleadings in the writ petition
regarding
the
lack
of
notice
are
corroborated by the record and not
contested. The cause for absence of the
petitioner in the proceedings before the
learned labour court is bonafide. These
facts have been overlooked by the court
below while rejecting the restoration
application. The restoration application is
liable to be allowed and is allowed.

8. Admittedly the award is exparte
to the applicant. The applicant was
prevented by good cause from contesting
the case on merits. The impugned award
was passed in violation of principles of
natural justice.

9. There is another aspect to the
matter. While entering an exparte award the
labour court cannot simply accept the
pleadings on their face value. The labour
court in such cases has to apply its mind
independently
to
the
pleadings
and
materials in the record and return specific
findings thereon. The credibility of the
evidences, pleadings and materials have to
be tested by the court below even in an exparte award. The labour court has passed
the impugned award solely on the foot that
there was no contest on behalf of the
petitioner-employer. The labour court has
failed to make independent findings on the
materials in the record. The impugned
award is bereft of reasons

10. In Devyani Beverages Ltd. Vs.
Labour
Court
II,
Deputy
Labour
Commissioner, reported at 2005 (6) AWC
6249 All, this Court held:

"13. In the present case, the award has
been passed merely on the basis of the
written statement of the employee. The
entire award is bereft of any discussion on
the merits of the case. A perusal of the
award shows that only the case of the
workman has been set out and without
analytically examining the material on
record and recording reasons for its
conclusion, the claim of the employer has
been allowed simply on account of the
provisions of Rule 12 (9) of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957. The said
award being totally unsupported by reasons
or discussions, cannot be said to be an
award on merits of the case Failure to give
reasons would amount to denial of justice.
The award speaks of the filing of the
written statement by the employer but has
not dealt on the comparative merit of the
claims and counter claims. Jumping to the
conclusion that the termination of the
446 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
workman was illegal after merely setting
out the factual aspect of the case, and
without discussing the merits, would render
the award illegal and unsustainable in law.
There is no analytical examination of the
merits of the claim which shows total nonapplication of mind."

11. The law laid down in Devyani
Beverages (supra) is squarely applicable to
the facts of this case and shall govern its
fate. The impugned award 24.12.2014
(published on 02.04.2016) is vitiated by
cryptic findings made therein which reflect
non application of mind.

12. The impugned award dated
24.12.2014 (published on 02.04.2016) and
order dated 27.01.2017 are liable to be set
aside and are set aside.

13. In wake of the preceding
discussion, the matter is remitted to the
learned labour court.

14. The learned labour court shall
make
all
endeavours
to
decide
the
controversy
on
merits
after
giving
opportunity of hearing to all the necessary
parties to the lis, preferably within a period
of four months from the date of receipt of a
certified copy of this order.

15. All parties are directed to
cooperate in the proceedings before the
court below.

16. The writ petition is allowed.
----------
(2022)02ILR A446
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 17.01.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE SAURABH SHYAM
SHAMSHERY, J.

Writ -C No. 21916 of 2010

Mahmood Rais & Ors. ...Petitioners
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioners:
Ch. N.A. Khan, Rizwan Ahmad, Thakur Pramod
Singh

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Petition U/Article - 226 - U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Section - 10(2), Section - 38-B- Declaration
of surplus land - Validity - In earlier three times
proceedings - repeated notices issued and same
were dropped or set aside by a reasoned order
on every occasion - being there were no surplus
land - prior to notices names of each tenure
holder have been mutated by the prescribed
authority in the revenue record on the basis of a
family settlement being considered to be
genuine and at that time there was no issue of
fraud or misrepresentation - those proceedings
were never challenged by the state authorities
thus get finality.

Criminal Law - Constitution of India, 1950
- Petition U/Article - 226 - U.P. Imposition
of Ceiling on Land Holdings Act, 1960 -
Section - 10(2), Section - 38-B- Declaration
of surplus land - Validity - fresh fourth notice
was issued by the prescribed authority - failed
to consider earlier orders on the issue of family
settlement and gone beyond power under
section - 38.B of the Act, 1960 and wrongly redetermined issue of family settlement without
any legal or valid ground only on the basis of
presumption - proceedings reopen after two
years by ignoring the point that issue has
already been settled during the multiple
proceedings
-
hit
by
the
principle
of'
constructive res judicata' against the petitioners'
- impugned orders order are set aside. (Para
24, 29, 31, 32)