1. Petitioner challenges an ex parte industrial award resulting from allegedly improper service of notice and a subsequent order refusing to set aside the award. (Para 2 )
Back
Next 
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 74894
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
Viju Abraham, J
Shemy Jojo – Appellant
Versus
Tomy Varghese – Respondent
WP(C) NO.42625 OF 2025
Important Points
A party should be granted a fresh opportunity to be heard and adduce evidence if an ex parte award was passed due to insufficient service of notice or incorrect address, especially when genuine reasons for non-appearance are presented.
Subject
Labour Law - Industrial Dispute
Headnote
(A) Service of Notice - Ex Parte Award - Where notices are returned as 'addressee left without instruction', treating such return as sufficient service without providing an additional opportunity to the party is improper. (Para 4)
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - When a party demonstrates a change of address and provides medical evidence regarding a spouse's illness, a fresh opportunity to adduce evidence and challenge an ex parte award should be granted to ensure a fair trial. (Para 3, 5)
Issues: Whether the ex parte award and the subsequent refusal to condone delay and set aside the award were sustainable given the incorrect address and the petitioner's personal circumstances.
(B) Principles of Natural Justice - Opportunity of Hearing - When a party demonstrates a change of address and provides medical evidence regarding a spouse's illness, a fresh opportunity to adduce evidence and challenge an ex parte award should be granted to ensure a fair trial. (Para 3, 5)
Issues: Whether the ex parte award and the subsequent refusal to condone delay and set aside the award were sustainable given the incorrect address and the petitioner's personal circumstances.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shemy Jojo
For the Respondents: D.Ajith Kumar
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Shemy Jojo
For the Respondents: D.Ajith Kumar
Table of Contents
2. Petitioner contends that the summons was improperly served at a wrong address, whereas the non-appearance was due to lack of actual notice. (Para 3 , 4 )
3. The Court observed that service of notice returned as unclaimed without repeated attempts at service may be insufficient and that the petitioner deserves an opportunity to defend. (Para 4 , 5 )
4. When notice is returned as unclaimed, the Tribunal, before proceeding ex parte, should attempt to effect service again to ensure the party has an adequate opportunity to appear. (Para 4 )
5. The impugned order is set aside, and the matter is remitted to the Industrial Tribunal for fresh consideration of the applications within the specified time limit. (Para 5 )
6. What is the requirement for the Tribunal to treat an unclaimed notice as sufficient service before passing an ex parte award?
The Court held that treating a notice returned as unclaimed as sufficient service without making further attempts to serve the party is improper; the Tribunal should afford one more chance to the party by repeating the notice. (Para 4 )
7. Does the court have the discretion to remit a matter back to the Industrial Tribunal to set aside an ex parte award?
Yes, if the Tribunal failed to consider the merits of a petition to set aside an ex parte award and the service of notice was found to be questionable, the Court may remit the matter for fresh consideration and evidence. (Para 2 , 5 )
THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 13.11.2026, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
VIJU ABRAHAM, J.
---------------------------------------------------------------
W.P.(C) No.42625 of 2025 ---------------------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 13th day of November, 2026
JUDGMENT
The above writ petition is filed challenging Ext.P1 ex parte Award and also Ext.P4 common order passed by the Tribunal on 29.09.2025.
2. The brief facts necessary for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: Petitioner’s late husband was arrayed as the 1st opposite party in I.D.No.101 of 2016 before the Industrial Tribunal, Thrissur, which was filed by the 1st respondent-workman. Ext.P1 ex parte Award was passed for the reason that though the notice sent to the management was returned with the postal endorsement “addressee left without instruction”, however, intimation is seen to have been given by the postal authority to both the management and, therefore, there is sufficient service of notice. Petitioner came to know about the same only when the execution petition was filed and thereupon the petitioner preferred Ext.P3 petition to set aside the ex parte Award, along with Ext.P2 petition to condone the delay in filing the same. The Tribunal, without considering the application in a proper manner, dismissed Exts.P2 & P3 by a common order. It is aggrieved by the same that the present writ petition has been filed.
3. The specific case of the petitioner is that no summons was received by her and that the summons was issued in a wrong name and address to one Sheji, W/o jojo, Muttichukkaran House, Anjangady, Sidooram Apartments, Room No.22, East Fort PO, Thrissur-680005, whereas the petitioner had, at that point of time, shifted her residence to a house taken on rent from one Nessy Yoosuf, Anapparambil House, Thrikakkara North, Ernakulum as per Ext.P5 rent agreement dated 04.06.2016. It is further submitted that the petitioner’s husband was under treatment for Parkinson's disease for several years as evident from Ext.P6 and he died on 19.08.2022 as evident from Ext.P8 Death Certificate. All these aspects were not taken into consideration while passing the order impugned herein.
4. Though notice was sent to the 1st respondent, there is no appearance on his behalf when the case was called. The reason stated in Ext.P1 to set the petitioner ex parte is that though summons were returned with an endorsement "addressee left without instruction", the intimation given by the postal authorities has not been responded to thereafter. This Court, in Leela Mathew v. Krishnamoorthy [2007 (3) KLT 867] has held that when the notice was unclaimed, before treating the same as a case of evasion, one more chance ought to have been given by repeating the notice. Firstly, the specific case of the petitioner is that her address had changed at the time of filing of the I.D. and notice was not sent to the proper address. Secondly, the petitioner also has a case that the 1st respondent was never under her employment and the allegations raised are false.
5. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances stated above, I am of the view that one more chance should be granted to the petitioner to adduce evidence and to prove her case.
Accordingly, Ext.P4 common order is set aside and the matter is remitted back for fresh consideration of Exts.P2 & P3 petitions by the Industrial Tribunal, Thrissur, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to adduce fresh evidence in the matter. The Tribunal shall issue notice to the petitioner and the 1st respondent and thereafter dispose of the matter preferably within an outer limit of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Till a decision is taken as directed above, the interim order granted by this Court will continue.
With the above said directions, this writ petition is disposed of.
