Repeatedly reopening uncontested labour proceedings constitutes abuse of process warranting dismissal with exemplary costs.

The respondent-workman claimed that he had been engaged as a part-time employee to operate a litho machine from 1 October 2001 and that his services were terminated on 1 August 2005.

The initial industrial reference was not contested by the petitioner, and the Labour Court directed reinstatement with 35% back wages on 21 November 2014.

The petitioner challenged that award in SCA No. 4480 of 2015. By order dated 19 September 2018, this Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration, subject to payment of costs of ₹20,000 and permitting the petitioner to lead evidence.

The petitioner allegedly neither paid the costs nor participated in the remand proceedings despite repeated opportunities.

The Labour Court consequently passed a fresh award dated 5 December 2019 directing reinstatement with 30% back wages.

The petitioner’s subsequent SCA No. 9818 of 2020 was withdrawn on 29 October 2020 with liberty to pursue an application under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966.

The Labour Court rejected that restoration application, I.D. Misc. Application No. 30 of 2021, by order dated 29 April 2022 and imposed costs of ₹10,000. The petitioner challenged that rejection in the present petition.

1. Whether the Labour Court erred in rejecting the petitioner’s application under Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, seeking restoration or setting aside of the award on the ground of sufficient cause for non-appearance.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court despite repeatedly failing to contest the reference proceedings and not complying with the earlier order directing payment of ₹20,000 as costs.

3. Whether the petitioner’s contention that the litho machine was non-operational and that the workman was relieved due to lack of work warranted interference with the Labour Court’s orders.

The Court applied Rule 26A of the Industrial Disputes (Gujarat) Rules, 1966, under which an ex parte judgment or award may be challenged before the Labour Court upon establishment of sufficient cause for non-appearance.

The Court further applied the principles that a litigant seeking discretionary writ relief must approach the Court with bona fides, comply with prior judicial directions, and cannot repeatedly reopen proceedings after failing to avail itself of opportunities granted by the Court.

It also applied the doctrine against abuse of the process of law, holding that successive proceedings pursued to delay implementation of an award and deprive a successful workman of the fruits of litigation may justify dismissal with costs.

No specific judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court found that the petitioner had been given repeated opportunities to contest the reference after the remand order dated 19 September 2018 but remained absent and failed to pay the imposed costs of ₹20,000.

Accordingly, the petitioner failed to demonstrate sufficient cause under Rule 26A for setting aside the Labour Court’s award.

The explanation that the litho machine was non-operational was held to be an afterthought because the petitioner had not raised or proved that defence despite the opportunities available in the remand proceedings.

The Court also considered the petitioner’s successive challenges—including the withdrawn SCA No. 9818 of 2020—as demonstrating an attempt to delay enforcement of the reinstatement award rather than a bona fide effort to contest the dispute.

In view of this conduct, the Labour Court’s refusal to restore the proceedings was not shown to be erroneous or warranting writ interference.

The Court upheld the Labour Court’s order dated 29 April 2022 rejecting I.D. Misc. Application No. 30 of 2021 and, consequently, left undisturbed the award directing reinstatement of the respondent-workman with 30% back wages.

Holding the matter to be a gross abuse of the process of law, the Court imposed additional costs of ₹1,00,000 payable by the petitioner to the respondent-workman within four weeks from receipt of the order’s copy.

The Rule was discharged and any interim relief was vacated forthwith.