Writ petitions challenging Labour Court awards granting compensation to two workmen for termination in violation of Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act after the employer was proceeded ex parte despite repeated service. The High Court found service validly effected and dismissed the petitions as meritless.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
% Date of Decision: 23.05.2025 + W.P.(C) 15801/2023, CM APPL. 63583/2023
M/S A.P.APPARELS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneesh Bahri, Advocate.
versus
THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shikha and Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocates for R-3 alongwith R-3 in person.
+ W.P.(C) 16239/2023, CM APPL. 65320/2023
M/S A.P.APPARELS .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Puneesh Bahri, Advocate.
versus
THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER & ORS. .....Respondents Through: Ms. Shikha and Mr. Tarun Kumar, Advocates for R-3 alongwith R-3 in person.
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ KUMAR OHRI JUDGMENT (ORAL)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15801/2023 & W.P.(C) 16239/2023 Page 1 of 4
Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 01:59:45
respectively.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15801/2023 & W.P.(C) 16239/2023 Page 2 of 4
Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 01:59:45
The workmen sent the demand notice through registered post which remained unanswered. In both the references, the management was duly served however, it chose not to appear and was eventually proceeded exparte on 26.09.2017 in both the cases. Both the workmen examined themselves and also filed their evidence by way of affidavits. As the management failed to appear, the Labour Court considered the averments and the evidence placed on record and returned a finding that services of both the workmen were terminated illegally in violation of Section 25F of the I.D. Act. Labour Court, observing that considerable time had passed, thought it fit to award compensation instead of reinstatement. Accordingly, lump sum compensation of Rs.2,50,000/- and Rs.1,30,000/- was awarded to the workmen i.e. Indal Kumar Betha and Sanjay Chauhan respectively in lieu of reinstatement, back wages and other consequential benefits. The Award also carried interest @ 9% from the date it becomes due till the time it is realised.
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15801/2023 & W.P.(C) 16239/2023 Page 3 of 4
Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 01:59:45
petitioner at second and third floor, Jwala Heri where he met one Mohd. Shoaib Alam who identified himself as Supervisor. Process Server also affixed copy of the summons on the property. On next date of hearing, i.e . 22.08.2017 though the Court was on leave however, it was recorded that Mohd. Shoaib Alam appeared and an endorsement was made to the effect that he had received the copy of the summons through post. The matter was listed on the next date i.e. 26.09.2017, when none appeared for the petitioner and the matter was proceeded ex-parte. Learned counsel for the petitioner tried to disassociate the management from Mohd. Shoaib Alam however, a perusal of the writ petition would show that there are no pleadings on the aforesaid aspect. In the opinion of this Court, the petitioner has failed miserably in disassociating the management from Mohd. Shoaib Alam and the same appears to be clearly an afterthought.
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI (JUDGE)
MAY 23, 2025 ga
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 15801/2023 & W.P.(C) 16239/2023 Page 4 of 4
Signed By:GAUTAM ASWAL Signing Da te:2 8.05.2025 01:59:45
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner was duly served before being proceeded ex parte before the Labour Court.
Whether the ex parte awards awarding compensation for illegal termination under Section 25F ID Act should be set aside.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
M/S A.P.Apparels
The Labour Commissioner & Ors.
Indal Kumar Betha
Sanjay Chauhan
Manoj Kumar Ohri
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
