HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD LUCKNOW WRIT - C No. - 9142 of 2025 Court No. - 17 HON'BLE SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J. 1. Heard Sri Aakash Prasad, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Rahul Shukla, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Sri Arvind Pratap Singh, the learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2. 2. By means of the instant writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of an order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Labour Court, Ayodhya whereby the petitioner's application for recall of an exparte award dated 30.08.2023 has been rejected. The recall of the order was sought on the ground that a representative of the petitioner used to attend the proceedings which were instituted in the year 2012, for a very long time. The Labour Court became vacant upon retirement of the Presiding Officer and thereafter the authorized representative of the petitioner stopped attending the Labour Court. After the presiding officer was pointed out in the year 2017, no notice of any date fixed was sent to the petitioner. The petitioner came to know about the proceedings through a letter dated 20.11.2023 sent by the opposite party no. 2. It was also stated in the application that although a notice was sent to the petitioner on 11.08.2021 and its service has been deemed to be sufficient, this notice was not served on the petitioner. 3. The opposite party no. 2 filed objection against the application stating Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Aakash Prasad, Amitav Singh, Himanshu Singh Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C., Arvind Pratap Singh Hindustan Unilever Limited Thru. Authorized Signatory .....Petitioner(s) Presiding Officer,Labour Court,Faizabad And Another .....Respondent(s) that the Labour Court had sent information of the date to the petitioner through a letter dated 11.08.2021 but the petitioner did not appear in furtherance of the notice and the proceedings were ordered to proceed exparte on 22.07.2022. An award was passed on 30.08.2023 which was published on 08.11.2023. A recall has been sought belatedly and it should be rejected. 4. The Labour Court held that the matter was proceeded with exparte against the petitioner earlier also by means of an order dated 02.08.2016 and the recall application dated 04.10.2016 filed by the petitioner was accepted on 10.03.2017. The petitioner has attended the proceedings before the Labour Court till 05.12.2017 i.e. for almost five years and thereafter the petitioner did not attend the proceedings although the presiding officer was working in the Court since 11.09.2019 till 17.08.2020. Again, a presiding officer was working during the period 01.01.2021 to 13.12.2023. It is also recorded in the impugned order that on 11.08.2021 a notice was sent to the petitioner through registered post at the address mentioned in the reference order but it was returned unserved with the endorsement that the office on that address stood closed. The Labour Court found that the cause shown in the affidavit filed in support of the application for recall of the order was not sufficient. 5. Assailing the validity of the aforesaid order, the learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner is an incorporated company and it is not a natural person. It is dependent on its officials and representatives for its representation before the Labour Court. The petitioner had assigned the task of misrepresenting itself in proceedings before the Labour Court to an authorized representative who continued to attend the proceedings for about five years, as is recorded in the impugned order. However, as the Labour Court remained vacant for long periopd, which is also evident from the narration made in the impugned order, it appears that the authorized representative became less vigilant. He has submitted that the petitioner should not be penalized by denying him an opportunity of hearing in these circumstances. 6. The learned counsel for the opposite party no. 2 has opposed the objection and he has submitted that the petitioner has participated in the WRIC No. 9142 of 2025 2 proceedings initially which shows that the petitioner had full knowledge of the proceedings. The petitioner thereafter abruptly stopped attending the proceedings for which reasons the proceedings were proceeded with exparte and decided exparte. He has submitted that the Labour Court has rightly exercised its discretion of not recalling the order when it found that the cause shown is not sufficient. 7. Having given anxious consideration to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner, I am of the considered view that when a Court remains vacant for a very long period, it would be proper upon appointment of a presiding officer to issue notice to the parties-more particularly when a party is not a natural person. 8. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I am of the view that the cause shown by the petitioner seeing recall of the exparte order is sufficient and the Labour Court has erred in rejecting the recall application. 9. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. 10. The impugned order dated 23.07.2025 passed by the Labour Court rejecting the petitioner's application for setting aside exparte order dated 23.08.2023 is set aside. The application for recall of the order dated 23.08.2023 is allowed and that the exparte order dated 23.08.2023 is set aside. The Labour Court is directed to decide the proceedings afresh after giving a proper opportunity of hearing to the parties, in accordance with law, expeditiously. October 8, 2025 Pradeep/- WRIC No. 9142 of 2025 3 (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) Digitally signed by :- PRADEEP SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench