Dainik Bhaskar News Paper (Bhaskar Publications And Allied Industries) vs Pramod Shukla

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32424
1 WP-9590-2021
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR

BEFORE
HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE MILIND RAMESH PHADKE
rd
ON THE 23 OF OCTOBER, 2026
WRIT PETITION No. 9590 of 2021
CNR No.: MPHC030123382021
DAINIK BHASKAR NEWS PAPER (BHASKAR PUBLICATIONS AND
ALLIED INDUSTRIES)
Versus
PRAMOD SHUKLA
Appearance:
Shri Ankur Mody - Advocate for the petitioner.
Shri Alok Kumar Sharma - Advocate for the respondent.
ORDER
The present petition has been preferred by the petitioner, challenging
the order dated 31.03.2021 passed by the Labour Court, Gwalior, in
Reference Case No. 22/A/ID Act/2018, titled Pramod Shukla Vs. Dainik
Bhaskar, to the extent that, while allowing the petitioner's application under
Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, for setting aside the
ex-parte award dated 04.12.2019, the learned Labour Court imposed certain
conditions governing the petitioner's right to defend the original proceedings.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is a
company incorporated under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956, and
is engaged in the business of print media. The dispute in question arose out
of a reference made by the Government, which was registered as Reference
Case No. 22/A/ID Act/2018. After the respondent, who was the first party in
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/27/2026
1:29:05 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32424
2 WP-9590-2021
the reference proceedings, submitted his statement of claim, the learned

Labour Court, vide order dated 30.05.2018, directed the issuance of notice to
the petitioner upon payment of process fee and fixed the matter for
appearance and filing of the written statement on 27.02.2019. On the said
date, the learned Labour Court proceeded ex-parte against the petitioner on
the basis of an internet copy of the service report produced by the
respondent. Subsequently, an ex-parte award dated 04.12.2019 was passed
against the petitioner, awarding an amount of Rs.33,75,521/-.
It is further submitted that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the ex-
parte award upon receipt of a communication dated 06.10.2020. Thereafter,
upon obtaining the requisite certified copies, the petitioner preferred an
application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908,
along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking
setting aside of the ex-parte award. The respondent appeared and filed a
reply to the said applications. The learned Labour Court, vide impugned
order dated 31.03.2021, allowed the petitioner's application under Order IX
Rule 13 CPC, holding that an opportunity to defend the proceedings ought to
be afforded in the interest of justice and in adherence to the principles of
natural justice. However, while granting such opportunity, the learned
Labour Court imposed certain conditions which are as follows:-
"(A) - 9 13
िनयोजक का ाथ
ना प  अंतग
त आदेश िनयम सी.पी.सी.
10,000 ( ) ,
दस हजार पये हज  से वीकार कया जाकर हजा
रािश सात

दवस म कम
चार" को भुगतान होने या %यायालय म 'बना शत
जमा होने

पर मूल करण का एकप ,ीय अवाड
अपा त होकर मूल करण पुनः

न /बर पर कायम होगा। िनयोजक को बचाव का अवसर उपल 2ध होगा।
(B)
िनयोजक पर यह प4 शत
आदेिशत क 5 जाती है क वह मजी ठया

वेजवोड
क 5 अनुसंसा अनुसार समाचार प  ित8ान के समूह क 5 वष

2007 2010
से तक के 'व:ीय वष ; क 5 राज व का प4 उ <लेख वादो :र
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/27/2026
1:29:05 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32424
3 WP-9590-2021

म अं कत करे। सं थान कस समूह म आयेगा उसके िलये राज वपूण


समूह का वीकार यो >य है या मा  ाथ? के काय
थल क 5 यूिनट के

संबंध म िनयोजक प , रख सकता है। िनराकण िनण
य म कया जायेगा।
(C)
मूल करण म ाथ? के िनयोजन का 'ववाद ना होने क 5 Aथित म

ाथ? को दावाकृत अविध म भूगतान क 5 गई रािश का प क द तावेज

अिनवाय
Dप से तुत करे। कम
चार" के द तावेज तलवी क 5 कय
वाह"

करने क 5 आव Eयकता नह "ं रहेगी।
(D)
आदेश क 5 शत
व का पालन ना होने पर िनयोजक उ F त Gय पर ाथ?
, "
से ितपर",ण का अिधकार " नह "ं रहेगा।

Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the aforesaid
conditions travel beyond the permissible scope of an order passed under
Order IX Rule 13 CPC. According to him, once the ex-parte award has been
set aside, the proceedings are required to resume from the stage at which the
petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte, thereby enabling it to file its
written statement and contest the reference in accordance with law. The
learned Labour Court could not, at that stage, dictate the specific contents of
the written statement or compel the petitioner to produce particular
documents in a predetermined manner, much less attach the consequence of
forfeiture of the right to cross-examine to non-compliance with such
directions. It is further contended that the petitioner is an independent unit
and that the learned Labour Court could not, in advance, proceed on the
premise that the financial particulars of the entire newspaper group, rather
than those of the petitioner's unit, were required to be disclosed. It is,
therefore, submitted that the impugned conditions are arbitrary, prejudicial to
the petitioner's defence and unsustainable in law.
Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the respondent opposes the
petition and submits that the underlying dispute relates to the benefits arising
out of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. Referring to paragraph 11
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/27/2026
1:29:05 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32424
4 WP-9590-2021
of the impugned order, he submits that, in view of the directions issued by

the Hon'ble Supreme Court in relation to the timely adjudication of disputes
concerning the Majithia Wage Board recommendations, the reference was
required to be decided within a period of six months. It is contended that the
original proceedings had remained pending for a considerable period and the
petitioner, despite having an opportunity to participate, remained absent,
resulting in the ex-parte award dated 04.12.2019. According to the
respondent, the petitioner's conduct occasioned an avoidable delay of nearly
three years and, upon setting aside the ex-parte award, the proceedings would
once again commence from an earlier stage, thereby further delaying the
adjudication of the dispute and depriving the employee of the benefits
claimed by him.
Learned counsel for the respondent further submits that the conditions
imposed by the learned Labour Court were intended to ensure expeditious
adjudication of the reference and to prevent further delay. The direction to
furnish the relevant financial particulars for the years 2007 to 2010 was
considered necessary in the context of the dispute concerning the
applicability of the Majithia Wage Board recommendations. It is, therefore,
contended that the learned Labour Court committed no illegality in imposing
the conditions and that the present petition deserves to be dismissed.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.
Upon consideration of the rival submissions, this Court finds that the
principal question requiring consideration is whether the learned Labour
Court, while setting aside the ex-parte award and restoring the opportunity of
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/27/2026
1:29:05 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32424
5 WP-9590-2021
defence to the petitioner, was justified in imposing the conditions contained

in clauses (B), (C) and (D) of the impugned order.
It is not in dispute that the learned Labour Court, by the impugned
order dated 31.03.2021, allowed the petitioner's application under Order IX
Rule 13 CPC and set aside the ex-parte award dated 04.12.2019. Once the
ex-parte award was set aside, the petitioner became entitled to participate in
the proceedings and contest the reference in accordance with law. Although
the learned Labour Court is competent to regulate its proceedings and pass
appropriate procedural directions to ensure expeditious adjudication, such
directions must remain within the bounds of law and must not unduly curtail
a party's legitimate opportunity to defend the proceedings.
The direction contained in clause (B), requiring the petitioner to
specifically disclose in its written statement the revenue of the entire
newspaper group for the years 2007 to 2010, in a predetermined manner, has
the effect of prescribing the precise nature and scope of the defence to be
taken by the petitioner before the pleadings are completed. The petitioner
cannot be compelled, as a condition for availing itself of the opportunity of
defence, to accept a particular factual premise concerning the financial
structure or status of its unit.
Similarly, the direction contained in clause (C), requiring the petitioner
to compulsorily file a chart of payments made to the respondent for the
claimed period in the event that the employment relationship is not disputed,
imposes a specific evidentiary obligation at the stage of restoration of the
proceedings. Such a direction, when imposed as a condition for permitting
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/27/2026
1:29:05 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32424
6 WP-9590-2021
the petitioner to defend the original proceedings, is not warranted.

Clause (D), which stipulates that non-compliance with the conditions
would result in forfeiture of the petitioner's right to cross-examine, is
particularly onerous. The right to cross-examine is an important component
of a fair opportunity to contest the evidence adduced by the opposite party.
Its curtailment cannot be made an automatic consequence of non-compliance
with the aforesaid directions, particularly when the ex-parte award itself has
been set aside and the proceedings have been restored for adjudication on
merits.
This Court is conscious of the concern expressed by the learned
Labour Court regarding the need for expeditious adjudication of the dispute,
particularly in view of its nature and the period for which the proceedings
have remained pending. The necessity of ensuring a timely decision,
however, cannot justify the imposition of conditions which unduly restrict
the petitioner's opportunity to present its defence or predetermine the nature
of its pleadings and evidence.
In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered
opinion that the conditions imposed under clauses (B), (C) and (D) of the
impugned order dated 31.03.2021 cannot be sustained and deserve to be set
aside.
Consequently, the petition is allowed. The award dated 31.03.2021
passed by the Labour Court, Gwalior, in Reference Case No. 22/A/ID
Act/2018 is modified to the extent that the conditions stipulated in clauses
(B), (C) and (D) thereof are hereby set aside. Remaining part of the award
Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/27/2026
1:29:05 PM

NEUTRAL CITATION NO. 2026:MPHC-GWL:32424
7 WP-9590-2021
dated 31.03.2021 shall remain intact.

Considering that the matter pertains to the year 2021, the petitioner is
granted four weeks’ time t o file the written statement, failing which the
petitioner’s right to file the written statement shall stand closed. Thereafter,
the learned Labour Court shall proceed with the matter o n its own merits,
uninfluenced by the conditions set aside by this Court, and shall endeavour
to decide the same as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of
three months from the date of filing of the written statement or closure of the
petitioner’s right to file the same, a s the case may be, i n accordance with
law.
With the aforesaid modification, the petition stands disposed of.
(MILIND RAMESH PHADKE)
JUDGE
ojha

Signature Not Verified
Signed by: YOGENDRA
OJHA
Signing time: 10/27/2026
1:29:05 PM