IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No.12545 of 2026 Decided on: 27. 07.2026 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wildcraft India Private Limited …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others. . .....Respondents ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Coram Ms. Justice Jyotsna Rewal Dua Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner: Mr. Rahul Mahajan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. Anup Rattan, Advocate General with Mr. Rajat Chaudhary, Assistant Advocate General. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge On 28.01.2015, petitioner moved an application before respondent No.2, seeking permission to lay off under Sections 25 (M) and 25(C) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) read with Rules framed thereunder. 2. Certain objections were raised therein by the State on 07.02.2015. The application was refiled on 21.02.2015. The application was rejected by respondent No.2 on 25.03.2015. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner preferred 1Whether reporters of print and electronic media may be allowed to see the order? Yes. 2 a review petition under Section 25 (M)(7) of the Act. The Review Petition was dismissed by respondent No.2 on 14.08.2015. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner instituted Wildcraft India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of H.P. and Others2 that was decided on 13.10.2025. Operative portion of the judgment reads as under:- “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 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.” 2 CWP No. 77 of 2016, decided on 13.10.2025. 3 In terms of the aforesaid decision, the Reviewing Authority was held obliged to hear the review petitioner before passing any order. Non-grant of opportunity of personal hearing to the review petitioner was held to be in breach of principle of audi alteram partem. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed. The impugned order dated 14.08.2025 passed by the respondent No.2, rejecting petitioner’s review petition was quashed and set aside with direction to respondent No.2 to decide the review petition on merits after hearing the petitioner. 3. Pursuant thereto, proceedings in the review petition were commenced again before respondent No.2. During the pendency of these proceedings, petitioner moved an application on 28.03.2026 (Annexure P-8) before respondent No.2 seeking to withdraw the application filed by it for permission to lay off under Sections 25(M) and 25 (C) read with Rules framed thereunder. The application was also stated to have an endorsement from respondent No.3 to the effect that the said respondent had no objection in case the application is withdrawn. The aforesaid application came up for consideration before respondent No.2, who vide impugned 4 order dated 10.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), declined petitioner’s prayer for withdrawing the application on the ground that this Court while deciding Wildcraft India Pvt. Ltd2 had specifically directed respondent No.2 to afford an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and thereafter, the review petition was to be decided afresh. Respondent No.2, therefore, concluded that the matter could not be disposed of merely on the request of the petitioner for withdrawal, without complying with the directions of the order. The relevant portion of the impugned order is as under:- “………The President of the Wildcraft Workers' Union (AITUC) also conveyed his consent to the said request. However, during the hearing, it was made clear to both parties that the request for withdrawal has been made at a highly belated stage. Moreover, the Hon ble High Court has specifically directed the undersigned to decide the review petition afresh, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and in accordance with law, Therefore, the matter cannot be disposed of merely on the basis of the request for withdrawal without complying with the directions of the Hon'ble Court. In the interest of justice, you are once again requested to submit your written arguments with respect to the review petition within 15 days from the date of receipt of this letter, so that final orders in the matter may be passed in compliance with the judgment/order of the Hon'ble High Court of Himachal 5 Pradesh.” 4. The impugned order cannot be countenanced. Merely because in Wildcraft India Pvt. Ltd2 , there was a direction to respondent No.2 to decide the review petition after hearing the petitioner as it was noticed that in the impugned order dismissing the review petition, principles of audi alteram partem had not been followed, would not mean that petitioner’s subsequent application, seeking withdrawal of the application moved by it under Sections 25(M) and 25(C) of the Act, is not to be considered. The subsequent development is also required to be considered in accordance with law and appropriate orders thereupon are required to be passed. It cannot be ignored that as per the case set up, respondent No.3 has also given its no objection for withdrawal of the application. The petitioner has moved an independent application seeking withdrawal of the application. This was to be adjudicated on its own merits. In case, this application is allowed question of deciding review petition on merits would not arise. This situation presented on account of filing of application for withdrawal was not there at the time of decision of Wildcraft India Pvt. Ltd2. In view of above, order dated 10.06.2026 6 (Annexure P-1), impugned herein, is quashed and set aside. Respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the application of the petitioner dated 28.03.2026 (Annexure P- 8) seeking withdrawal of the original application in accordance with law on its own merits, before venturing to decide the review petition. The writ petition to stand disposed of accordingly. Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, also to stand disposed of. Jyotsna Rewal Dua July 27, 2026 Judge R.Atal