Deliberate non-participation despite repeated notice does not justify setting aside an ex parte labour award.

The appellant, a sweeper, claimed that she had worked for the respondent Gram Panchayat from 2008 to 2015 and was removed without due process.

The Labour Court, Bhuj, passed an ex parte award directing reinstatement with 30% backwages in Reference (T) No. 5/2016 on 23 February 2024.

The Labour Court later rejected the Panchayat’s application to recall the award.

The Single Judge set aside the award, prompting the workman’s appeal.

Before the Division Bench, the appellant argued that the Panchayat had been notified on several occasions but deliberately failed to participate; the Panchayat maintained that the Single Judge had correctly set aside the award.

The Labour Court’s recall order recorded service of notices concerning the reference, an application for production of documents, and the workman’s closing pursis.

1. Whether the Single Judge was justified in setting aside the Labour Court’s ex parte award where the Panchayat had received notice on multiple occasions but did not participate in the proceedings.

2. Whether the Labour Court’s award of reinstatement with 30% backwages should be restored or modified.

The judgment cites no specific statute or precedent.

It applies the principle that a party should not obtain an advantage from its own deliberate failure to participate in proceedings after receiving repeated notice; such deliberate non-participation is distinguishable from a genuine inability to appear despite reasonable efforts.

The Court also considered the prejudice to the workman from prolonging litigation and the circumstances of her employment when determining appropriate relief.

The Court found that the Panchayat had been notified on three occasions over the course of the reference and that there was no denial that the notices had been received.

It therefore treated the Panchayat’s absence as deliberate non-participation, rather than an inadvertent failure or inability to appear.

Setting aside the award in those circumstances would, in the Court’s view, reward the Panchayat’s own omission and cause further prejudice to a Class-IV workman who had litigated for years.

The Court nevertheless reduced backwages, exercising its discretion to modify the relief while preserving the remainder of the award.

The Court quashed and set aside the Single Judge’s judgment and confirmed the Labour Court’s award, modifying backwages from 30% to 15%.

It directed the Gram Panchayat to comply with the award, including payment of backwages and other consequential benefits, within 60 days.