A writ petition is not maintainable against an ex parte labour award where Rule 26A remedy remains unavailed.

The respondent-workman alleged that the petitioner-employer had illegally terminated the respondent’s service on 10 March 2005 after continuous employment from 2003 and raised an industrial dispute in 2007.

The Labour Court initially allowed the reference ex parte on 31 May 2016 because the petitioner did not contest the proceedings. The petitioner’s restoration application was allowed on 25 September 2018; however, after restoration, the petitioner again remained absent and did not file a written statement or lead evidence.

The Labour Court consequently passed an award dated 24 May 2022 directing reinstatement with continuity of service and full back wages.

The petitioner challenged the award under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution after more than four years, contending that the respondent had been engaged only on successive 11-month contracts, that the contract was not renewed after 12 January 2005, and that the award was passed without affording the petitioner an opportunity to defend the matter.

1. Whether the writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 was maintainable against the ex parte Labour Court award when the petitioner had an alternative remedy under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966.

2. Whether the Labour Court award dated 24 May 2022 suffered from any jurisdictional error warranting interference by the High Court.

3. Whether the petitioner, having remained absent despite restoration of the reference, was entitled to challenge the award on the merits after a delay of more than four years.

The Court applied Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, reiterating that writ jurisdiction is ordinarily not exercised where an effective alternative remedy is available, particularly in the absence of a jurisdictional error.

Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966 provides a remedy to a party against whom an ex parte order or award has been passed by permitting an application for restoration upon showing sufficient reasons for non-appearance.

The Court further applied the principle that mere absence from, or failure to contest, adjudicatory proceedings does not by itself create a ground for invoking writ jurisdiction against an adverse award; interference under Articles 226 and 227 requires a demonstrable jurisdictional error or other exceptional ground.

The Court found gross negligence and inaction on the petitioner’s part. The petitioner had failed to contest the original reference, obtained restoration in 2018, and nevertheless remained absent again during the restored proceedings.

Since Rule 26A specifically provided a remedy against an ex parte award, and the petitioner had not pursued that remedy or explained its repeated absence, the writ petition was held to be not maintainable.

The petitioner also approached the High Court more than four years after the award without explaining the delay, which the Court viewed as a delaying tactic prejudicial to the workman.

The Court found no material establishing that the Labour Court lacked jurisdiction or committed any jurisdictional error.

The petitioner’s contractual-employment defence and challenge to reinstatement and back wages could not justify interference when the petitioner had voluntarily failed to participate in the Labour Court proceedings.

The Rule was discharged.

The petitioner was directed to comply with the Labour Court’s judgment and award within six weeks from 21 August 2026.