Allowed¶24

Hindustan Unilever Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory v. Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Faizabad and Another

Allahabad HC8 Oct 2025WRIC/9142/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

recall of ex parte award; sufficient cause; vacancy of Labour Court; notice upon appointment of presiding officer; non-natural person / incorporated company representation; Hindustan Unilever Limited; Labour Court Ayodhya/Faizabad; award dated 30.08.2023 published 08.11.2023; ex parte proceedings 22.07.2022; notice dated 11.08.2021 returned unserved; writ petition allowed; fresh decision after opportunity of hearing.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition allowed; impugned order dated 23.07.2025 set aside; application for recall allowed and the ex parte order set aside; Labour Court directed to decide the proceedings afresh after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law, expeditiously. ¶24

Hindustan Unilever Limited Thru. Authorized… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶24

Issue for consideration

Whether the order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Labour Court, Ayodhya rejecting the petitioner's application for recall of the ex parte award dated 30.08.2023 is valid. +1 more

¶10

Ratio / Principle

When a Court remains vacant for a very long period, it would be proper, upon appointment of a presiding officer, to issue notice to the parties — more particularly when a party is not a natural person.

¶21

Key takeaways

On the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the cause shown by the petitioner for recall of the ex parte order was sufficient and the Labour Court erred in rejecting the recall application.ratio¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), WRIT-C No. 9142 of 2025, decided 08.10.2025 by Subhash Vidyarthi, J. Hindustan Unilever Ltd. challenged the Labour Court, Ayodhya's order dated 23.07.2025 rejecting its application to recall an ex parte award dated 30.08.2023 in proceedings instituted in 2012. The Labour Court had recorded that the petitioner attended till 05.12.2017 (about five years), that a Presiding Officer was in office during 11.09.2019–17.08.2020 and 01.01.2021–13.12.2023, that a notice dated 11.08.2021 sent by registered post was returned unserved with the endorsement that the office at the address stood closed, that proceedings were ordered ex parte on 22.07.2022, and that the cause shown was insufficient. Held (single Judge): when a Court remains vacant for a very long period, upon appointment of a presiding officer it would be proper to issue notice to the parties, more particularly where a party is not a natural person (an incorporated company dependent on its representatives); on the peculiar facts the cause shown was sufficient and the Labour Court erred. Writ petition allowed: impugned order set aside, recall application allowed, ex parte order set aside, and the Labour Court directed to decide the proceedings afresh after giving a proper opportunity of hearing, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶1

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW

¶2

WRIT - C No. - 9142 of 2025

¶3

Hindustan Unilever Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory

¶4

.....Petitioner(s)

¶5

Versus

¶6

Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Faizabad And Another	.....Respo	ndent(s)
Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aakash Prasad, Himanshu Singh	Amitav	Singh,
Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Arvind Prata	p Singh

¶7

Court No. - 17

¶8

HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

¶9

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.

¶10

By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Labour Court, Ayodhya whereby the petitioner's application for recall of an exparte award dated 30.08.2023 has been rejected. The recall of the order was sought on the ground that a representative of the petitioner used to attend the proceedings which were instituted in the year 2012, for a very long time. The Labour Court became vacant upon retirement of the Presiding Officer and thereafter the authorized representative of the petitioner stopped attending the Labour Court. After the presiding officer was pointed out in the year 2017, no notice of any date fixed was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the proceedings through a letter dated 20.11.2023 sent by the opposite party no. 2. It was also stated in the application that although a notice was sent to the petitioner on 11.08.2021 and its service has been deemed to be sufficient, this notice was not served on the petitioner.

¶11

The opposite party no. 2 filed objection against the application stating

¶12

WRIC No. 9142 of 2025

¶13

¶14

that the Labour Court had sent information of the date to the petitioner through a letter dated 11.08.2021 but the petitioner did not appear in furtherance of the notice and the proceedings were ordered to proceed exparte on 22.07.2022. An award was passed on 30.08.2023 which was published on 08.11.2023. A recall has been sought belatedly and it should be rejected.

¶15

The Labour Court held that the matter was proceeded with exparte against the petitioner earlier also by means of an order dated 02.08.2016 and the recall application dated 04.10.2016 filed by the petitioner was accepted on 10.03.2017. The petitioner has attended the proceedings before the Labour Court till 05.12.2017 i.e. for almost five years and thereafter the petitioner did not attend the proceedings although the presiding officer was working in the Court since 11.09.2019 till 17.08.2020. Again, a presiding officer was working during the period 01.01.2021 to 13.12.2023. It is also recorded in the impugned order that on 11.08.2021 a notice was sent to the petitioner through registered post at the address mentioned in the reference order but it was returned unserved with the endorsement that the office on that address stood closed. The Labour Court found that the cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for recall of the order was not sufficient.

¶16

Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an incorporated company and it is not a natural person. It is dependent on its officials and representatives for its representation before the Labour Court. The petitioner had assigned the task of misrepresenting itself in proceedings before the Labour Court to an authorized representative who continued to attend the proceedings for about five years, as is recorded in the impugned order. However, as the Labour Court remained vacant for long periopd, which is also evident from the narration made in the impugned order, it appears that the authorized representative became less vigilant. He has submitted that the petitioner should not be penalized by denying him an opportunity of hearing in these circumstances.

¶17

The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the objection and he has submitted that the petitioner has participated in the

¶18

WRIC No. 9142 of 2025

¶19

¶20

proceedings initially which shows that the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings. The petitioner thereafter abruptly stopped attending the proceedings for which reasons the proceedings were proceeded with exparte and decided exparte. He has submitted that the Labour Court has rightly exercised its discretion of not recalling the order when it found that the cause shown is not sufficient.

¶21

Having given anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that when a Court remains vacant for a very long period, it would be proper upon appointment of a presiding officer to issue notice to the parties-more particularly when a party is not a natural person.

¶22

In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner seeing recall of the exparte order is sufficient and the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the recall application.

¶23

Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed .

¶24

The impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Labour Court rejecting the petitioner's application for setting aside exparte order dated 23.08.2023 is set aside. The application for recall of the order dated 23.08.2023 is allowed and that the exparte order dated 23.08.2023 is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to decide the proceedings afresh after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law, expeditiously.

¶25

(Subhash Vidyarthi,J.)

¶26

October 8, 2025

¶27

Pradeep/-

¶28

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

Hindustan Unilever Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory v. Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Faizabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hindustan Unilever Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory v. Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Faizabad and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

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