Bombay High Court Allows Petition Challenging Labour Court Order in Industrial Dispute — Matter Remanded for Fresh Adjudication on Merits. Failure to Provide Reasoned Decision and Non-Consideration of Evidence Constitutes Violation of Principles of Natural Justice.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: BOMBAY In Favour of Accused

Admin

2026-05-18 15:21:45

Font size:

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited, challenged an order of the Labour Court, Nashik, dated 30 November 2024, which dismissed the reference (Reference (IDA) No. 13 of 2019) for want of prosecution, and a subsequent order dated 31 January 2025 rejecting the restoration application. The respondent No.1, Suhas Shankar Pagare, was the workman. The Labour Court had dismissed the reference because the petitioner's representative was absent. The petitioner filed a restoration application, which was also rejected. The High Court noted that the Labour Court had not considered the evidence on record and had not passed a reasoned order. The High Court set aside both impugned orders and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on merits, directing the Labour Court to decide the reference afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard. The High Court observed that the Labour Court's approach was contrary to the principles of natural justice and that the matter should be decided on its merits.

Headnote

A) Industrial Law - Labour Court - Dismissal for Default - Restoration - The Labour Court dismissed the reference for want of prosecution and later rejected the restoration application without considering the evidence on record. The High Court held that the Labour Court must decide the matter on merits after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard, and that the impugned orders were not sustainable. (Paras 1-5)

B) Industrial Law - Principles of Natural Justice - Reasoned Order - The Labour Court's order rejecting the restoration application was cryptic and did not provide reasons. The High Court emphasized that quasi-judicial authorities must pass reasoned orders, and failure to do so vitiates the decision. (Paras 3-5)

Issue of Consideration

Whether the Labour Court's order dismissing the reference for want of prosecution and subsequently rejecting the restoration application was legally sustainable, and whether the Labour Court failed to provide a reasoned decision on merits.

Final Decision

The High Court allowed the writ petition, set aside the impugned orders dated 30 November 2024 and 31 January 2025, and remanded the matter to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on merits. The Labour Court was directed to decide Reference (IDA) No. 13 of 2019 afresh after giving both parties an opportunity to be heard.

Law Points

Principles of natural justice
reasoned order requirement
remand for fresh adjudication
Industrial Disputes Act
1947

Case Details

2026:BHC-AS:16848

Writ Petition No.2297 of 2026

2026-04-09

Amit Borkar

2026:BHC-AS:16848

Mr. Kiran Bapat, Senior Advocate with Mr. P.N. Salgaonkar, & Mr. Pratik Salgaonkar i/by Salgaonkar & Co., for the petitioner. Mr. K.W. Thakare with Mr. G.R. Naik, Mr. Uresh U. Sawant, and Ms. Rutika Naik i/by M/s. G.R. Naik & Co., for the respondent No.1

GlaxoSmithKline Pharmaceuticals Limited

Suhas Shankar Pagare & Glaxo Laboratories Employees Union

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition challenging Labour Court orders dismissing reference for want of prosecution and rejecting restoration application.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought setting aside of Labour Court orders and direction to decide the reference on merits.

Filing Reason

Labour Court dismissed Reference (IDA) No. 13 of 2019 for want of prosecution and rejected restoration application without considering evidence.

Previous Decisions

Labour Court order dated 30 November 2024 dismissing reference for default; order dated 31 January 2025 rejecting restoration application.

Issues

Whether the Labour Court's dismissal of the reference for want of prosecution was justified. Whether the Labour Court's rejection of the restoration application was proper and reasoned.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that the Labour Court failed to consider the evidence on record and passed orders without application of mind. Respondent No.1 opposed the petition, supporting the Labour Court's orders.

Ratio Decidendi

A Labour Court must decide a reference on merits after considering the evidence and providing a reasoned order. Dismissal for default without considering the merits and rejection of restoration without reasons violates principles of natural justice.

Judgment Excerpts

The Labour Court dismissed the reference for want of prosecution and subsequently rejected the restoration application without considering the evidence on record. The impugned orders are not sustainable and are set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh adjudication on merits.

Procedural History

Reference (IDA) No. 13 of 2019 was filed before the Labour Court, Nashik. On 30 November 2024, the Labour Court dismissed the reference for want of prosecution. The petitioner filed a restoration application, which was rejected on 31 January 2025. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition before the High Court.