2025:HHC:34586 IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 77 of 2016 Decided on: 13.10.2025 Wildcraft India Private Limited … Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others … Respondents Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 _____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.P. Singh, Deputy AG for respondents-State. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral) By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia prayed for the following reliefs:- “a). To quash and set aside the order dated 25.3.2015 and 14.08.2015 (Annexures P-1 and P-2) passed by the Labour Commissioner. b). To allow the application filed for lay off under Section 25- M and 25-C of the Industrial Disputes Act and under Rule 80- A (1) of the H.P. Industrial Disputes Rules, 1974. c). To allow the review petition filed under Section 25-M(7) of the Industrial Disputes Act read with Section 114 of the CPC by the petitioner company.” 1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2 2025:HHC:34586 2. The limited grievance of the petitioner is that feeling aggrieved by the order dated 25.03.2015, in terms whereof, the Labour Commissioner, Himachal Pradesh, declined the permission to lay-off workmen employed in the establishment of the petitioner, preferred a review petition. According to the petitioner, the review petition stands decided by the Authority vide impugned order Annexure P-2 on 14.08.2015 without hearing the petitioner herein. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has handed over to the Court the information received under the Right to Information Act, which is taken on record. This is dated 03.05.2016. A perusal thereof demonstrates that after the review application was filed, indeed, 14.08.2025 was not the date given for the hearing of the review petition and the same was decided at the back of the petitioner. In fact, the averments made to this effect in para-10 of the petition have not been denied in the reply filed by the respondents, as is also evident from reply on merit to the petition, wherein inter alia the stand of the respondents is that even if personal hearing in the review proceedings was not given to the petitioner, even then, the same does not absolve the petitioner of its illegal action and order dated 14.08.2025 is a reasoned order. 4. This Court is of the considered view that the minimum that was expected from the reviewing authority was that when a review was preferred by the petitioner before it of its earlier order, it 3 2025:HHC:34586 should have had decided the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to the review petitioner. This being not done, renders the order passed by the Authority as void ab initio. It is settled principle of law that any order which has civil consequences vis-à-vis a person or an entity, should not be passed at the back of said person on entity. Herein, obviously as the petitioner was aggrieved by the first order passed by the Labour Commissioner, it preferred a statutory review petition. As observed herein above, the reviewing authority was obliged to hear the review petitioner and thereafter, it would have had passed any order it intended to but non-grant of opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner defeats the principle of audi alteram partem. On this short count, this petition is allowed. Order dated 14.08.2025 (Annexure P-2) is quashed and set aside with direction to the Labour Commissioner to decide the review petition afresh after hearing the petitioner, in accordance with law. The petition stands disposed of in above terms. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge October 13, 2025 (narender)