JUDGMENT

1. This application has been moved by the applicant/ petitioner for recalling the order passed by this court on 19.12.2025 in OWP No. 796/2005, for the reason that long before the date of judgment, the respondent no. 2-Chand Ram had expired, and that his legal heirs were not brought on record, as such, the petition has become abated, and the dismissal of the petition by the judgment, is, therefore non est in the eyes of law and deserves to be recalled.

2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant submits that the respondent no. 2-Chand Ram was ex parte and the main question, as to the status of the trust, could not be decided with sufficient material, without any thorough submissions on the same, and further submits that without filing of review petition, the applicant has filed this application for recalling the judgment in question, having been passed under a jurisdictional defect, as the respondent-Chand Ram being ex parte had not appeared in the case for years together and was not before the Court to contend that the petitioner/trust was an Industry; that the judgment in question was not announced in presence of the writ petitioner and could not be noticed online for weeks and after making a frantic effort to get at the record of the death of the respondent-Chand Ram, the applicant secured the same on 11.04.2026 and it was prayed that the application be allowed and the judgment dated 19.12.2025 passed in OWP No. 796/2005 be recalled.

3. It is interesting to note with concern that in Paragraph no.3 (iii) of the application that the judgment was reserved and delivered, after a long period of several months, without proper updation and hearing, as such, the same is liable not to be allowed to stay intact, as this assertion on behalf of the applicant/petitioner casts aspersions on the working of this court. It may not be out of place to mention, as is borne out from the judgment/order dated 19.12.2025 itself, that the judgment/order was reserved on 04.12.2025 and was delivered on 19.12.2025, within a period of 15 days. The applicant has, thus, made a factual and baseless allegation in its application. The application has been drafted by Mr. Vasharan Thakur, Advocate, who is stated to be not only the chamber-mate but brother of the appearing counsel Mr. Ashwani Thakur, Advocate, and such an assertion smacks of the professional misconduct on his part. However, instead of proceeding further in this direction, this Court restrains itself, leaving it to be introspected by the counsel, with regard to his professional conduct.

4. It has been, vehemently, argued by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order, sought to be recalled, had been passed in ignorance of the important facet of invalidity of the order, as in the writ petition, having been heard in ex parte, the judgment/order can be said to have been passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the petitioner-Trust had not been allowed to participate in the proceedings before it by the Court, as such, the judgment/order is a nullity, not to be taken into account and that this court had not considered the reach and extent of Section 36 of the Industrial Disputes Act and the far-reaching consequences for the Trust, as to its status, being dealt with by the Tribunal perfunctory, without adequate, sufficient and credible evidence and material, having been ignored, which vitiates the judgment on account of jurisdictional defect entrenched in superficiality and casualness.

5. On a consideration of the matter, it appears that the applicant had challenged the order dated 09.09.2003 passed by the J&K Industrial Tribunal, whereby, the claimant-Chand Ram, on a reference made by the Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir, vide SRO No. 13 dated 21.01.2003, held him entitled to receive back wages to the extent of 50%, from the date of his termination, till passing of the award payable by the applicant- J&K Dharmarth Trust.

6. A