Dismissed¶9

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour, Lucknow and 3 Others

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025WRIC/2009/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Hindustan Unilever Ltd.; State of U.P. Labour; WRIT-C No. 2009 of 2024; Article 226 writ petition; execution proceedings; ex parte/exparte award dated 23.08.2023; Labour Court Ayodhya Case No. 12/2012; award set aside in Writ C No. 9142 of 2025; infructuous; dismissed; refund of deposit made under order dated 28.02.2024; Subhash Vidyarthi J.; decision date October 8, 2025; Lucknow Bench.

What did the court decide?

Refund to the petitioner of the amount deposited in the Court in furtherance of the order dated 28.02.2024; petition dismissed as infructuous. ¶9

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 2009 of 2024

¶3

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its Authorized Signatory

¶4

uorze gnaory	Versus	.....Peti	tioner(s)
State Of U.P. Thru. Prin. Se Lucknow And 3 Others	cy. Labour,	.....Res	pondent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s)	: Aakash Singh, Yash Jo	Prasad, Himanshu shi	Amitav Singh,
Counsel for Respondent(s)	: C.S.C.,	Arvind Prata	p Singh
Court No.- 17

¶5

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶6

Heard Sri Aakash Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2.

¶7

By means of the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has sought quashing of an order passed in execution proceedings instituted for executing of an exparte award dated 23.08.2023 passed by the Labour Court, Ayodhya in Case No. 12/2012.

¶8

The exparte award has been set aside by means of a separate judgment and order passed today in Writ C No. 9142 of 2025 and, therefore, the present writ petition challenging validity of proceedings for execution of the exparte award dated 23.08.2023 has become infructuous.

¶9

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed as having become infructuous.

¶10

WRIC No. 2009 of 2024

¶11

¶12

The amount deposited in this Court in furtherance of the order dated 28.02.2024 be refunded to the petitioner.

¶13

October 8, 2025

¶14

Pradeep/-

¶15

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶16

Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour, Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Unilever Ltd. Mumbai, Thru. Its Authorized Signatory v. State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Labour, Lucknow and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Kunal Karda Vs the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission Lko. and Another

Raghuveer Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Revenue Lko. and 6 Others

Pradeep Kumar Singh Vs State of U.P. Thru. Addl. Chief Secy. Deptt. Revenue Lko. and 12 Others

Vijay Kumar Singh and 2 Others vs Smt. Anju Bangar

Hameedullah Khan vs U.P. Sunni Central Waqf Board 3-A Mall Avenue Lko. and 2 Others

Anurag Dubey vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko. and Another