"Denial Of Reasonable Opportunity": Chhattisgarh High Court Remits Matter After Labour Court Proceeded Ex-Parte On Same Day While Service Report Was Still Awaited

It was held that declaring a party ex parte on the very same day the court had previously noted that the service report was still "awaited" constitutes denial of a reasonable opportunity of hearing and a violation of the principles of natural justice.

​The Bench of Justice Bibhu Datta Guru observed, “In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned Labour Court was not justified in proceeding ex parte against the appellant without recording a clear satisfaction regarding due service of notice in accordance with law. The material available on record indicates that the service report was awaited and yet, on the very same day, the appellant was directed to be proceeded against ex parte. Such course adopted by the learned Labour Court has resulted in denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing to the appellant.”

Advocate Shashank Thakur appeared for the Appellant, while Advocate Shyamta Prasad Sannat appeared for the Respondents.

Appeals were filed under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 against the common order passed by the Labour Court dismissing the applications preferred by the Appellants under Rule 10B(9) read with Rule 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 read with Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Factual Background

The litigation originated when the Respondent/workman filed a statement of claim asserting that he had been employed as a Deputy Security with Superior Fire and Security Services (SFSS) since December 2008. He alleged that his services were terminated on November 20, 2020, purportedly because he was underweight.

The workman/ Respondent contended that he had completed over 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year and that his dismissal violated the mandatory statutory protections of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Based on these claims, he sought full reinstatement with back wages. During the proceedings, the Appellant-employer was proceeded against ex parte. Consequently, the Labour Court passed an award declaring the termination illegal. The Court ordered the workman/ Respondent’s reinstatement but declined the request for back wages.

The Appellants maintained that they were entirely unaware of the ex parte proceedings. Upon reviewing certified records, they confirmed they had been proceeded against in their absence. Following this, the Appellants filed applications before the Labour Court to set aside the ex parte award and request a fresh hearing on the merits. However, the Labour Court dismissed these applications through the impugned common order.

Contention of the Parties

The appellant contended that the impugned order is perverse and legally unsustainable due to a procedural anomaly. The Labour Court noted that the service report was still awaited and scheduled the next hearing. However, later that same day at 5:00 PM, the court reconvened at the respondent's request, abruptly declared the appellant ex parte, and moved to the evidence stage. The appellant argued this late-afternoon reversal was irregular and deprived them of their right to be heard.

Furthermore, in another matter, the appellant asserted that the respondent was never their employee, making the company an unnecessary party to the dispute. They argue the Labour Court dismissed their application to recall the award mechanically, failing to investigate the claim of non-service of notice. The appellant maintained they are ready to contest the case on its merits and that the current order suffers from a clear non-application of mind.

The Respondent asserted that he was a rightful employee and that the court acted within its jurisdiction. They argue the findings in the impugned order are justified and that no judicial interference is warranted at this stage.

Observations of the Court

The Court observed, “From the above sequence, it prima facie appears that earlier during the day on 17.08.2022, the learned Labour Court had consciously recorded that the service report was awaited and deemed it appropriate to wait for confirmation regarding service of notice. Despite such observation, later on the same day, the appellant was proceeded ex parte primarily on the basis of a track consignment report produced by the workman’s counsel, without there being a formal satisfaction recorded regarding due service of notice… The propriety of declaring a party ex parte on the very date when the Court itself had observed that service confirmation was awaited, and without a clear finding of effective service, assumes significance in the present appeal.”

The court also said that the it is apparent from Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 that where a document is required to be served by post, service shall be deemed to have been effected only when it is shown that the letter containing the document was properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post, and the presumption of service is, therefore, conditional upon proof of proper dispatch in the manner contemplated under the provision.

“The very fact that earlier during the day the Court considered it appropriate to await the service report demonstrates that service had not been conclusively established. Therefore, proceeding ex parte against the appellant on the same date, without clear proof of service as contemplated under Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, cannot be said to be in consonance with law”, the Court held.

The Court relied on the landmark ruling of the Supreme Court in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal and Others, 1980 and held that if there is sufficient cause shown which prevented a party from appearing before the Labour Court, the Labour Court will have no jurisdiction to proceed and consequently, it must necessarily have the power to set aside the ex parte award.

“It is well settled that adjudication under the Act, 1947 involves determination of valuable rights of the parties and, therefore, the principles of natural justice are required to be scrupulously followed. An order having civil consequences ought not to be sustained if passed without ensuring proper service and affording adequate opportunity to contest”, the Court observed.

Accordingly, the Court set aside the impugned order and remitted the matter to the Labour Court for consideration afresh.

Cause Title: Jindal Steel And Power Limited v. Umesh Kumar Chauhan [Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:10349]

Appearances:

Appellant: Advocate Shashank Thakur and Advocate Atanu Ghosh

Respondent: Advocate Shyamta Prasad Sannat

Click here to read/download the Judgment