News Citation : 2026 LN (HC) 170
February 27, 2026 : The High Court of Chhattisgarh has set aside an ex parte award passed by a Labour Court against Jindal Power Limited and Superior Fire and Security Services Pvt. Ltd., holding that the employers were denied a fair opportunity to be heard before the award was delivered.
Justice Bibhu Datta Guru delivered the judgment on February 27, 2026, in two miscellaneous appeals arising out of a common order dated July 25, 2025, passed by the Labour Court at Raigarh.
The dispute began when Umesh Kumar Chauhan, a security employee, approached the Labour Court claiming that he had been working as Deputy Security with Superior Fire and Security Services since December 27, 2008. He alleged that his services were terminated on November 20, 2020, on the ground that he was underweight. According to the workman, he had completed 240 days of continuous service in a calendar year and his termination was carried out without complying with Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. He sought reinstatement with back wages.
During the proceedings, the employers were proceeded against ex parte on August 17, 2022. The Labour Court subsequently passed an award on December 10, 2022, declaring the termination illegal and directing reinstatement of the workman, though without back wages.
The companies later moved applications seeking recall of the ex parte award. They contended that they had never been properly served with notice and only became aware of the award after receiving a copy by registered post along with a reinstatement application in March 2023. However, the Labour Court dismissed their recall applications in July 2025, prompting the present appeals.
Before the High Court, the appellants argued that on August 17, 2022, the Labour Court itself had recorded that the service report of the notice was awaited. Despite this, later on the same day at around 5 PM, the matter was taken up again and the employers were declared ex parte based mainly on a postal tracking report produced by the workman’s counsel. They maintained that no confirmed service report was on record and that they were denied an opportunity to file their reply.
Examining the record, the High Court noted that the order sheet clearly mentioned that confirmation of service was awaited earlier on the same day. The Court observed that under Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, service by post is deemed effective only when the letter is properly addressed, prepaid and posted by registered post, and there is a presumption of delivery in the ordinary course. In the present case, there was no categorical finding that service had been duly effected in accordance with law.
The Court also relied on the Supreme Court’s decision in Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which held that while a tribunal has the power to proceed ex parte, such power is conditional. If sufficient cause is shown for a party’s absence, the tribunal must have the authority to set aside the ex parte award.
Justice Guru held that the Labour Court should not have proceeded ex parte without recording clear satisfaction regarding proper service of notice. Since adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act involves determination of valuable rights, principles of natural justice must be strictly followed. An order with civil consequences cannot stand if passed without ensuring proper service and adequate opportunity to contest.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Labour Court’s common order dated July 25, 2025, allowed the employers’ applications for recall, and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for fresh consideration on merits. Both parties have been directed to appear before the Labour Court on April 29, 2026, and the Court has been asked to dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Case Reference : In MA No. 179 of 2025 (Jindal Steel and Power Limited vs Umesh Kumar Chauhan) and MA No. 177 of 2025 (Superior Fire and Security Services Pvt. Ltd. vs Umesh Kumar Chauhan), Mr. Shashank Thakur, Advocate, appeared for the appellant in MA No. 179/2025, Mr. Atanu Ghosh, Advocate, appeared for the appellant in MA No. 177/2025, and Mr. Shyamta Prasad Sannat, Advocate, appeared for the respondent.
