Bombay High Court

DILIP MANOHAR DESAIversusM/S PEREIRA AND CASTELINO AND ANR

Decided: 20 February 2026
Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: AMIT BORKAR

Holding

The Court held that the order recalling the ex‑parte order was based on false reasons and therefore set it aside, restoring the original ex‑parte order.

Summary

The petitioner Shabnoor Ayub challenged an order dated 9 December 2019 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal‑cumm‑Labour Court (CGIT‑II) that had set aside an earlier ex‑parte order dated 10 August 2017. The Tribunal had recalled the ex‑parte order on the basis that the respondents' advocate failed to appear, a reason the petitioner alleged was false. Evidence showed that the respondents' advocate had declined to appear and that the respondents had not filed a counter‑affidavit to dispute this. The High Court noted that the respondents also failed to appear despite service of notice. Finding the reasons for recalling the ex‑parte order to be false, the Court set aside the 9 December 2019 order and restored the original 10 August 2017 order, disposing of the writ petition.

Issues considered

Whether the CGIT‑II was justified in recalling the ex‑parte order on the ground of the respondents' advocate's non‑appearance.
Whether the reasons provided by the respondents for recalling the ex‑parte order were genuine.
Whether the original ex‑parte order should be restored.

Subjects

Industrial Tribunal
Ex‑parte order
False justification
Restoration of order
Writ petition
High Court of Bombay

Judgment

                                                                              23-wp-4612-2023.doc


                      Shabnoor
                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                                         CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

                                        WRIT PETITION NO.4612 OF 2023

SHABNOOR              Dilip Manohar Desai                           … Petitioner
AYUB                             V/s.
PATHAN
Digitally signed by
                      M/s. Pereira & Castelino & Anr.               … Respondents
SHABNOOR AYUB
PATHAN
Date: 2026.02.20
14:40:01 +0530



                      Mr. Yogendra Pendse, for the Petitioner.



                                                    CORAM     : AMIT BORKAR, J.

                                                    DATED     : FEBRUARY 20, 2026
                      P.C.:

                      1.      The challenge in this petition arises out of an order dated 9th
                      December 2019 passed by the Presiding Officer of the Central
                      Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court – II, Mumbai
                      ("CGIT – II") in Miscellaneous Application No. CGIT-2/3 of 2019,
                      thereby setting aside the ex-parte order dated 10th August 2017
                      passed by the earlier CGIT.

                      2.      The sole reason for recalling the ex-parte order appears to be
                      the acceptance of the purported sufficient cause presented by the
                      respondents, namely that the Advocate for the respondents,
                      despite receiving instructions, failed to appear before the Tribunal.

                      3.      The respondents' explanation was that they had engaged an
                      Advocate and handed over the papers, including the vakalatnama,
                      for filing the written statement. They were under the impression




                                                         1
                                                      23-wp-4612-2023.doc


that the Advocate had filed the written statement. However, they
only came to know of the ex-parte order upon receiving the notice
dated 2nd January 2019.

4.    The learned Advocate for the petitioner drew my attention to
the affidavit filed by the Advocate, whom the respondents had
allegedly engaged to appear for them before the Tribunal. In her
affidavit, the Advocate has stated that the respondents had
approached her to represent them in the matter; however, she had
informed them that she could not appear. This affidavit has not
been disputed by the respondents before the Tribunal through a
counter-affidavit.

5.    It appears that on 14th June 2024, this Court issued notice
to the respondents.

6.    The Advocate for the petitioner has filed an affidavit of
service along with the track consignment report, indicating that
the notice was delivered to the respondents on 2 August 2024.
Despite this, the respondents have failed to appear. Consequently,
the petition is being decided on its merits.

7.    On perusal of the affidavit filed by the petitioner, it appears
that the reasons furnished by the respondents for recalling the ex-
parte order are false. Given the false nature of the reasons
provided, the Tribunal could not have recalled its ex-parte order.
Hence, the following order is passed:

(i)   The order dated 9 December 2019 passed by the CJIT – II is
hereby set aside.




                                  2
                                                   23-wp-4612-2023.doc


(ii)     The order dated 10 August 2017 passed by the CJIT in
Application (Ref) No.CGIT-2/1 of 2013 stands restored.

8.       The writ petition stands disposed of in above terms. No
costs.


                                           (AMIT BORKAR, J.)




                                 3

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…