DHARMARTH TRUST J AND K vs INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL AND ANR.

HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH
AT JAMMU




CM No. 3228/2026 in
OWP No. 796/2005

Reserved on: 30.10.2026
Pronounced on: 04.11.2026

Uploaded on: 04.11.2026
Operative part or full judgment - Full



Dharmarth Trust J and K …Appellant(s)

Through: Mr. R S Thakur, Sr. Adv with
Mr. Arun Singh, Advocate.



Vs.



Industrial Tribunal & Anr. …Respondent(s)

Through: None.


CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M. A.CHOWDHARY, JUDGE


JUDGMENT
1. This application has been moved by the applicant/
petitioner for recalling the order passed by this court on
19.12.2025 in OWP No. 796/2005, for the reason that long
before the date of judgment, the respondent no. 2-Chand Ram
had expired, and that his legal heirs were not brought on
record, as such, the petition has become abated, and the
dismissal of the petition by the judgment, is, therefore non est
in the eyes of law and deserves to be recalled.
2. Learned senior counsel appearing for the applicant
submits that the respondent no. 2-Chand Ram was ex parte
and the main question, as to the status of the trust, could not

be decided with sufficient material, without any thorough
submissions on the same, and further submits that without
filing of review petition, the applicant has filed this application
for recalling the judgment in question, having been passed
under a jurisdictional defect, as the respondent-Chand Ram
being ex parte had not appeared in the case for years together
and was not before the Court to contend that the
petitioner/trust was an Industry; that the judgment in question
was not announced in presence of the writ petitioner and could
not be noticed online for weeks and after making a frantic effort
to get at the record of the death of the respondent-Chand Ram,
the applicant secured the same on 11.04.2026 and it was
prayed that the application be allowed and the judgment dated
19.12.2025 passed in OWP No. 796/2005 be recalled.
3. It is interesting to note with concern that in Paragraph
no.3 (iii) of the application that the judgment was reserved and
delivered, after a long period of several months, without proper
updation and hearing, as such, the same is liable not to be
allowed to stay intact, as this assertion on behalf of the
applicant/petitioner casts aspersions on the working of this
court. It may not be out of place to mention, as is borne out
from the judgment/order dated 19.12.2025 itself, that the
judgment/order was reserved on 04.12.2025 and was delivered
on 19.12.2025, within a period of 15 days. The applicant has,
thus, made a factual and baseless allegation in its application.
The application has been drafted by Mr. Vasharan Thakur,

CM No.3228/2026 in OWP No. 796/2005 Page 2 of 5

Advocate, who is stated to be not only the chamber-mate but
brother of the appearing counsel Mr. Ashwani Thakur,
Advocate, and such an assertion smacks of the professional
misconduct on his part. However, instead of proceeding further
in this direction, this Court restrains itself, leaving it to be
introspected by the counsel, with regard to his professional
conduct.
4. It has been, vehemently, argued by the learned senior
counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order, sought to be
recalled, had been passed in ignorance of the important facet of
invalidity of the order, as in the writ petition, having been heard
in ex parte, the judgment/order can be said to have been
passed in violation of principles of natural justice, as the
petitioner-Trust had not been allowed to participate in the
proceedings before it by the Court, as such, the judgment/order
is a nullity, not to be taken into account and that this court had
not considered the reach and extent of Section 36 of the
Industrial Disputes Act and the far-reaching consequences for
the Trust, as to its status, being dealt with by the Tribunal
perfunctory, without adequate, sufficient and credible evidence
and material, having been ignored, which vitiates the judgment
on account of jurisdictional defect entrenched in superficiality
and casualness.
5. On a consideration of the matter, it appears that the
applicant had challenged the order dated 09.09.2003 passed by
the J&K Industrial Tribunal, whereby, the claimant-Chand

CM No.3228/2026 in OWP No. 796/2005 Page 3 of 5

Ram, on a reference made by the Govt. of Jammu & Kashmir,
vide SRO No. 13 dated 21.01.2003, held him entitled to receive
back wages to the extent of 50%, from the date of his
termination, till passing of the award payable by the applicant-
J&K Dharmarth Trust.
6. After filing of OWP No. 796/2005 before this court, the
respondent no.2 was served, who appeared through Advocate
Raghu Mehta, however, later, for continued absence, the
respondent was proceeded ex parte as contended by the
applicant in its application, as well. After hearing the petitioner
in ex parte, the petition was dismissed and the order impugned
therein, having been passed by the J&K Industrial Tribunal,
was upheld. It was never the case of the applicant/petitioner,
till the final disposal of the main petition and filing of this
application, that the respondent no.2 had passed away during
the pendency of this petition, and had it been so, the petitioner
would have been within its legal right not only to apprise this
court about the death of the respondent no.2, but the
application for bringing on record his legal heirs could also have
been moved. No such effort was made on the part of the
petitioner, at any point of time, till the main petition was heard
ex parte and decided.

7. The applicant, after passing of the judgment, seems to
be aggrieved of the judgment, which either could have been
assailed in an appeal or if there was any error apparent on the
face of the record in the judgment, the same could have been

CM No.3228/2026 in OWP No. 796/2005 Page 4 of 5

sought to be reviewed by the same court. Instead of invoking the
available remedy, the applicant has chosen a novel method to
move this application seeking recalling of the judgment/order.
8. Even if the judgment had been passed after the demise
of the contesting respondent, against whom ex parte
proceedings had been initiated, the applicant was well within its
rights to file the appeal against legal heirs of the respondent no.
2, however, the applicant has taken no pains to avail that
remedy and instead of that has moved this application for
recalling of the judgment/order pointing fingers against the
working of this court, to have passed the judgment after
reserving the matter for months together, against facts, as the
judgment was pronounced within a period of fifteen days from
the date it was reserved.
9. The application is, thus, found to have been grossly
misconceived and is liable to be rejected.
10. Viewed thus, CM No. 3228/2026 is dismissed . No
order as to costs.


(M.A.CHOWDHARY)
JUDGE
Jammu
04.11.2026
Raj kumar
Whether the order is reportable: Yes
Whether the order is speaking: Yes/No
Naresh Kumar
2026.11.04 16:27
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document

CM No.3228/2026 in OWP No. 796/2005 Page 5 of 5