The court held that when an employer is given successive opportunities—including clear “last opportunity” warnings—to adduce evidence but fails to do so, claims of denial of fair hearing are unsustainable. The judgment affirms the established principle requiring diligence and is binding on subordinate courts in Employee’s Compensation Act matters.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name |
MAC/299/2023 of MANAGER, SOURABH ROLLING MILL PVT. LTD. Vs Rohit Kumar CNR CGHC010053472023 |
| Date of Registration | 25-02-2023 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | DISMISSED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Shri Justice Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Type of Law |
|
| Questions of Law | Whether the employer was denied an opportunity to adduce evidence before the Labour Court, justifying interference? |
| Ratio Decidendi | The appellant was granted four opportunities—including a “last opportunity”—to produce evidence but failed to utilize them. The record showed successive adjournments and explicit instructions. The High Court held that the appellant had not been deprived of a fair opportunity and that the claim of denial of hearing was baseless. Accordingly, the award of compensation stood affirmed, and no substantial question of law arose. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | The respondent, employed as a mechanic fitter, met with an accident causing loss of a thumb and a 40% reduction in earning capacity. Labour Court awarded compensation and interest. Employer/appellant claimed denial of opportunity before Labour Court. High Court reviewed the procedural record. |
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:45053 |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts under the jurisdiction of the Chhattisgarh High Court |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts dealing with analogous procedural controversies |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reiterates that a party who repeatedly fails to adduce evidence after being given clear, multiple opportunities—including a definitive “last chance”—cannot later claim denial of natural justice.
- Labour and trial courts may rely on explicit warnings and cost-impositions to justify closing the opportunity to present evidence.
- Appeals on grounds of supposed procedural unfairness will fail if the record demonstrates ample, documented chances were given and not availed.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the claim that the Labour Court denied the employer a chance to offer evidence.
- The procedural record showed that after the claimant closed their evidence, the employer was given four separate opportunities to present witnesses, including a stern “last opportunity” order accompanied by costs.
- The employer nonetheless failed to avail themselves of these chances and did not produce any witnesses.
- The court found no merit in the contention that the employer was denied natural justice and affirmed the Labour Court’s award.
- The court held that no substantial question of law arises, and the employer’s procedural claim was not sustainable.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant – Employer):
- The Labour Court passed the award without affording the employer a proper opportunity to adduce evidence.
- The award was perverse and illegal for this reason.
- Sought admission of the appeal on a proposed substantial question of law.
Respondent (Employee):
- No appearance or arguments recorded in the judgment.
Factual Background
The respondent was employed as a mechanic fitter by the appellant company since March 2017. On August 24, 2017, while performing his duties upon instructions, he suffered an accident resulting in the loss of the thumb of his right hand. His earning capacity was assessed to have decreased by 40%. When the employer refused to pay compensation, the employee filed a claim under the Employee’s Compensation Act. The Labour Court awarded compensation and penalty; the employer challenged the order, citing alleged lack of opportunity to present evidence.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment discusses Section 30 of the Employee’s Compensation Act, 1923 regarding appeals to the High Court.
- The claim was originally filed under Section 22 of the Act.
- The court did not reinterpret any statutory provisions but focused on the application of established procedure relating to the right to adduce evidence and the fair opportunity principle in adjudication before the Labour Court.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No dissenting or concurring opinion is recorded in the judgment.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – Judgment applies and reaffirms established procedural law principles.
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:45053