The Allahabad High Court has held that if an employer fails to file a rebuttal to a workman’s written statement, the Labour Court cannot merely accept the averments in the statement as true without examining evidence and applying judicial reasoning. This ruling arose in the case of M/s Omrao Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of U.P. & Others, where a Labour Court had passed an ex-parte award in favour of a workman, based solely on his written statement and affidavit, because the employer had not submitted a rebuttal under Rule 12(9) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1957.
Justice Prakash Padia observed that Rule 12(9) does indeed provide that when a workman’s affidavit, filed along with his written statement, is not rebutted by the employer, the Labour Court “shall presume the contents of the affidavit to be true and make an award accepting the facts stated in the written statement.” However, the Court clarified that this presumption does not mean the Labour Court must accept all averments without any oral or documentary evidence or without applying judicial mind. Mere reliance on the written statement alone and the employer’s non-appearance or non-rebuttal cannot substitute for a reasoned decision.
The background was that the workman had initiated proceedings before the Labour Court alleging wrongful termination or some industrial dispute. After the written statement with affidavit was filed by the workman, no rebuttal was filed by the employer. As a result, the Labour Court passed an ex-parte award in favour of the workman. When the employer learned of the award, they filed an application for recall, which the Labour Court rejected. The employer then approached the Allahabad High Court via a writ petition, arguing that the Labour Court’s award was non-reasoned, lacked evidentiary basis, and that witnesses or evidence should have been considered before passing the award.
Justice Padia in his judgment emphasized that labour laws, while often welfare legislation and sometimes not requiring overly formal procedures, still demand that courts properly consider evidence and give reasoned decisions. He cited that as held in earlier Supreme Court jurisprudence (such as Bharat Bank Ltd. vs. Employees of Bharat Bank Employees’ Union) procedural laxity does not dispense with the requirement of evidence and reasoned judgments.
Because in the impugned award the Labour Court had given no reasons, had not discussed merits, had not called witnesses, and had not considered any documentary evidence or conducted cross-examination, the Court found a “total non-application of mind.” The award was thus unsustainable in law. Consequently, the High Court set aside the award, directed payment of ₹5,000 to the workman as costs, and remitted the matter back to the Labour Court for a fresh hearing and fresh decision in light of the principles laid down.
The ruling underscores that even when procedural rules permit presumptions due to non-rebuttal, such presumptions are not absolute and must be supplemented by judicial evaluation of the entire case. The Labour Court is required to engage with evidence, even in the absence of employer’s rebuttal, and must provide a reasoned award rather than a perfunctory one.
The case title is M/s Omrao Industrial Corporation Pvt. Ltd. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others (Writ C No. 28075 of 2025).
0 Comments
Thank you for your response. It will help us to improve in the future.