The court reaffirmed that due process and the principle of natural justice must be upheld, particularly ensuring proper notice is served before ex parte decisions are made.

JUDGMENT :

BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.

1. Since both the appeals arise out of the common order dated 25/07/2025 passed by the Labour Court, Raipur (C.G.), they are being heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. These appeals under Order 43 Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 are directed against the common order dated 25/07/2025 passed in Case No. 09/ID Act/2023/Misc. and Case No. 10/ID Act/2023/Misc. by the Labour Court, Raigarh (C.G.), whereby the learned Labour Court has dismissed the applications preferred by the appellants under Rule 10B(9) read with Rule 24 of the Industrial Disputes (Central) Rules, 1957 (for short ‘the Rules, 1957’) read with Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

3. (a) Facts of the case essential for adjudication of these appeals are that the respondent/workman preferred a statement of claim before the learned Labour Court in Case No. 01/ID Act/2022/Ref., inter alia pleading that he was employed as Deputy Security with Superior Fire and Security Services (SFSS), Patrapali, Raigarh with effect from 27- 12-2008. It was averred that his services were terminated on 20-11-2020 on the ground that he was underweight. The workman further asserted that he had completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year and that his termination was effected without compliance of the mandatory provisions contained in Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as “the ID Act”). On such pleadings, he prayed for reinstatement in service with back wages.

(b) During the pendency of the said proceedings, the appellants herein/employer were proceeded ex parte by order dated 17-08-2022. Thereafter, the learned Labour Court was pleased to pass an award dated 10-12-2022 (pronounced on 10-01-2023), whereby the termination of the workman was held to be illegal and was set aside. The learned Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman in service, however, without back wages.

(c) According to the appellants, they had no knowledge of the ex parte proceedings or of the award passed by the learned Labour Court. It is stated that a copy of the award, along with an application seeking reinstatement, was received by the appellant through registered post, whereupon, for the first time on 29-03-2023, it came to know about the passing of the ex parte award. Thereafter, upon obtaining certified copies of the relevant records, the appellant came to learn that it had been proceeded against ex parte by order dated 17-08-2022 and that the final award had been rendered in its absence. Thereafter, the appellant preferred an application before the learned Labour Court under Rule 10B(9) read with Rule 24 of the Rules, 1957 read with Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, praying for setting aside the ex parte award and for affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant.

(d) The learned Labour Court, Raigarh, by common order impugned dated 25-07-2025, dismissed the said applications preferred by the appellant for setting aside the ex parte award. Aggrieved by the said order, the appellants have preferred the present Appeals.

4. (i) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned order dated 25-07-2025 (Annexure A-1) passed by the learned Judge under the Industrial Disputes Act is perverse, contrary to the material available on record and unsustainable in law. It is contended that a perusal of the order sheets of Case No. 01/ID Act/2022/Ref. would clearly demonstrate that on 08-07-2022 notices were directed to b