A court may set aside an ex-parte labour award and restore the proceedings to allow for an adjudication on merits when the initial default is attributed to counsel-related oversight, provided there is appropriate compensation through costs to the aggrieved party.

JUDGMENT

This writ petition has been filed challenging Exhibit P5 Award in I.D. No.26 of 2024 on the file of the Labour Court, Ernakulam.

2. It is the case of the petitioner that the matter was decided without adequate representation from the petitioner. It is submitted that Exhibit P6 proceedings will show that the petitioner had not been set ex parte. It is submitted that, the non-appearance occurred not on account of any fault on the part of the petitioner, but on account of a mistake committed by the office of the counsel for the petitioner. It is submitted that, the petitioner has serious contentions to be raised before the Labour Court. It is submitted that though a detailed statement of objections had been prepared , the same could not be filed on account of default in appearing before the Labour Court. It is submitted that the petitioner may be given one chance to contest the matter on merits.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent submits that the petitioner has not made out any ground for interference with Exhibit P5 Award. It is submitted that though the Labour Court had granted several opportunities, the petitioner/Management was negligent in conducting the case before the Labour Court and the Labour Court had no option, but to proceed with the matter ,in accordance with the law. It is submitted that, having suffered an Award, it does not lie in the mouth of the petitioner to now contend that the default occurred on account of the absence of effective representation from the office of its lawyer.

4. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent , I am of the view that the petitioner can be given one opportunity to contest the matter on merits before the Labour Court. Though the learned counsel appearing for the 1^st respondent may be right in contending that there is no material to suggest that the default actually occurred in the office of the counsel for the petitioner, since it is asserted before me that the petitioner was not at fault and the mistake in representing the case and filing the statement of objections occurred at the office of the counsel for the petitioner, I am inclined to allow this writ petition and grant one opportunity to the petitioner to contest the matter on merits before the Labour Court. However, this can only be subject to payment of costs.

Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed. Exhibit P5 Award will stand set aside and I.D. No.26 of 2024 will stand restored to the file of the Labour Court, Ernakulam. The petitioner and the 1^st respondent shall appear before the Labour Court at 11.00 a.m on 29.05.2026 either by themselves or through their authorized representative and thereafter, the Labour Court shall adjudicate the matter afresh in accordance with the law, after affording to the petitioner an opportunity of filing its statement of objections. Since the 1st respondent was not at fault, the petitioner shall pay costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only) to the 1^st respondent and also produce a memo having paid the said amount, before the Labour Court on 29.05.2026. If the petitioner fails to pay the costs and file a memo as directed above, the petitioner will not be entitled to the benefit of this judgment.