HC Sets Aside Reinstatement Order for Lack of Reasons

Case Details: Unitas Foods (P.) Ltd. vs. Gyanender [2025] 181 taxmann.com 444 (HC-Delhi)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Tara Vitasta Ganju, J.
• Ms Naomi Chandra, Adv. for the Petitioner.
• Pran Krishna Jana, Adv. for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the respondent was appointed as a Marketing Executive by the petitioner and later promoted to Purchase Manager. The services of the respondent were terminated and thereafter respondent filed a claim petition before the Labour Court claiming that the petitioner management was not providing the facilities like appointment letter, weekly and yearly leave, overtime, bonus and other allowances and when the same were demanded, the petitioner/management terminated the services without any notice and without payment of earned salary for the period.

Since the petitioner-management didn’t come forward to cross-examine the respondent-claimant, the respondent’s evidence remained uncontroverted and unrebutted and was thus accepted on face value.

The Labour Court concluded that the services of the respondent were terminated illegally and unjustifiably by the petitioner and thus awarded the relief of reinstatement with full back wages, along with continuity of services and all other consequential benefits.

It was the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had engaged a counsel before the Labour Court and had also filed a reply to the claim of the respondent. Subsequently, the petitioner’s counsel stopped appearing in the matter and did not inform the petitioner of this. The petitioner further stated that on multiple occasions, the counsel did not appear and sought adjournments. Hence, the petitioner’s evidence was closed.

The petitioner also challenged the impugned award on another ground. The petitioner submitted that the impugned award was bereft of any reasons and that there was no finding with respect to the issues raised before the Labour Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the impugned award contained no findings or reasons, suffered from a material irregularity, and was accordingly set aside. Thus, the matter was remanded to the Labour Court, and the petitioner was directed to cross-examine the respondent on the next date of hearing.

List of Cases Referred to

• Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta (2009) 12 SCC 609 (para 16)
• Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 (para 17).