MP HC Removes Group-Revenue Pleading And Cross-Examination Forfeiture Conditions On Dainik Bhaskar’s Defence Of ₹33.25 Lakh Wage Claim

The respondent’s industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court, Gwalior. After the petitioner failed to appear, the Labour Court proceeded ex parte and made an award dated 5 December 2019 for Rs. 33,25,199. The petitioner later sought to set aside the award under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. On 31 March 2021, the Labour Court allowed the application but imposed conditions, including directions concerning the petitioner’s pleadings and financial disclosures, production of a payment chart in specified circumstances, and forfeiture of its right to cross-examine if the conditions were not met.

The petitioner challenged those conditions, arguing they impermissibly restricted its defence; the respondent supported them as measures to expedite adjudication of the Majithia Wage Board dispute.

Order IX Rule 13 CPC was the procedural basis for setting aside the ex parte award. Once the award was set aside, the petitioner was entitled to participate in the restored proceedings and contest the reference in accordance with law.

Although a Labour Court may regulate its proceedings and issue directions to secure expeditious adjudication, those directions must not unduly curtail a party’s legitimate opportunity to defend itself. The Court also treated cross-examination as an important component of a fair opportunity to contest the opposing party’s evidence.

The Court held that clause (B) improperly prescribed the financial position the petitioner had to plead, including requiring disclosure of the newspaper group’s revenue, and thereby assumed a factual premise before the pleadings were completed.

Clause (C) imposed a specific documentary obligation at the restoration stage. Neither was warranted as a condition for allowing the petitioner to defend the reference. Clause (D) was particularly onerous because it made loss of the right to cross-examine an automatic consequence of non-compliance. The need to decide the dispute expeditiously did not justify restrictions that predetermined the petitioner’s pleadings or unduly limited its defence.

The petitioner was given four weeks to file its written statement, failing which its right to do so would stand closed. The Labour Court was directed to proceed in accordance with law and endeavour to decide the matter within three months after the written statement was filed or the right to file it was closed.