Labour Court Can't Pass Non-Speaking Ex-Parte Award Solely On Unrebutted Affidavit Under Rule 12(9) U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules: Allahabad High Court - 2025-08-21

Covering Law & Justice.

Allahabad High Court Sets Aside Labour Court's Ex-Parte Award, Stresses Need for Judicious Examination

Allahabad: The High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, in a significant ruling, has set aside an ex-parte award passed by a Labour Court, emphasizing that a failure to file a written statement by an employer does not automatically entitle a workman to an award without a proper examination of merits. The bench of Justice Prakash Padia held that an award must be a "speaking order" supported by reasons and an analytical examination of the evidence on record.

Case Background

The case, M/S Omrao Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs State Of UP , was initiated after the Labour Court No.4 in Kanpur passed an ex-parte award on August 7, 2024, in favour of a workman, Shri Lal Ji Prasad Bajpai. The petitioner company, M/S Omrao Industrial Corporation, claimed it was unaware of the proceedings and upon learning of the award, filed a recall application, which was subsequently rejected by the Labour Court on February 19, 2025. Aggrieved by these orders, the company approached the High Court.

Arguments from Both Sides

Petitioner's Stance: Counsel for the petitioner argued that the award was passed in the absence of any written statement, evidence, or cross-examination from the employer. They contended that the Labour Court's decision was a "non-speaking order" based merely on presumptions without any evidence to substantiate that the summons was properly served upon the company. The petitioner sought an opportunity to present its case on merits.

Respondent's Stance: The counsel for the workman initially defended the Labour Court's orders as legal. However, it was fairly conceded that certain legal aspects were not considered by the Labour Court while passing the award. The respondent's argument relied on Rule 12(9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957, which presumes the contents of a workman's affidavit to be true if not rebutted by the employer.

Legal Principles and Court's Reasoning

The High Court meticulously analyzed the nature of the ex-parte award and the application of Rule 12(9). Justice Padia observed that while labour laws are welfare legislations and may not require strict procedural adherence, it does not absolve the courts of their duty to follow basic principles of evidence and justice.

The court's judgment highlighted a critical flaw in the Labour Court's approach:

"The entire award is bereft of any discussion on the merits of the case... The said award being totally unsupported by reasons or discussions, cannot be said to be an award on merits of the case. Failure to give reasons would amount to denial of justice."

The court clarified the scope of Rule 12(9), stating that it cannot be interpreted to mean that all averments in a workman's affidavit must be accepted in toto without any documentary or oral evidence and without judicious examination by the Labour Court.

"Jumping to the conclusion that the termination of the workman was illegal after merely setting out the factual aspect of the case, and without discussing the merits, would render the award illegal and unsustainable in law. There is no analytical examination of the merits of the claim which shows total non-application of mind."

Final Decision and Implications

Finding that the award was unsustainable due to a total non-application of mind and lack of reasoning, the High Court set aside both the ex-parte award dated August 7, 2024, and the order rejecting the recall application dated February 19, 2025.

In the interest of justice, the court allowed the writ petition and remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh decision. The petitioner was directed to pay a cost of Rs. 5,000 to the workman. The court laid down a clear timeline: - The petitioner must file its written statement and other documents within six weeks. - The parties will exchange replies within one month thereafter. - The Labour Court is directed to decide the matter on its merits, in accordance with the law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within six months.

This judgment serves as a strong reminder to quasi-judicial bodies like Labour Courts that procedural shortcuts cannot come at the cost of substantive justice and that all orders, especially those with significant consequences, must be reasoned and based on a judicious review of the case's merits.