Dismissing an application filed by the J&K Dharmarth Trust seeking recall of a judgment upholding an Industrial Tribunal award in favour of a former employee, the Court held that the Trust had failed to avail the remedies available to it during the pendency of the writ petition and could not subsequently adopt an application for recall as a substitute for an appeal or review.

Justice M.A. Chowdhary observed that even if the judgment had been delivered after the death of the contesting respondent, the Trust was entitled to file an appeal against his legal heirs. The Court found the recall application to be “grossly misconceived”.

Background

The application was filed by the J&K Dharmarth Trust seeking recall of the High Court's judgment dated December 19, 2025, passed in a a writ petition. The writ petition had challenged an order passed by the J&K Industrial Tribunal, which had held Chand Ram entitled to 50% back wages from the date of his termination till the passing of the award, payable by the Dharmarth Trust.

The Trust subsequently sought recall of that judgment on the ground that Chand Ram had died during the pendency of the writ petition, but his legal representatives had not been brought on record. It contended that the proceedings had consequently abated and that the judgment dismissing the petition was non est in law.

The Trust further argued that Chand Ram had been proceeded against ex parte and that the central question concerning the status of the Trust as an industry had not been adequately addressed in the absence of his participation. It also questioned the judgment on the ground that it had allegedly been reserved and delivered after several months without proper updation or hearing.

The applicant maintained that the judgment suffered from a jurisdictional defect and that the application for recall was therefore maintainable even without filing a review petition.

Court's Observation

The High Court examined the procedural history of the writ petition and noted that Chand Ram had initially been served and had appeared through Advocate Raghu Mehta. However, owing to his continued absence, he was subsequently proceeded against ex parte. The Court observed that the Trust had never informed it, during the pendency of the writ petition or before its final disposal, that Chand Ram had died.

It held that had the Trust brought the fact of his death to the Court's notice, it could have taken steps to bring his legal heirs on record. However, no such effort was made at any stage before the writ petition was heard and decided.

The Court noted that the Trust had sought to rely upon the death of Chand Ram only after the judgment had gone against it. It observed that the applicant could have apprised the Court of the respondent's death during the pendency of the proceedings and could also have moved an application for bringing his legal heirs on record.

The Court found that the Trust had not taken either step and could not now rely upon its own failure to do so as a ground for recalling the judgment.

Rejecting the contention that the judgment had become non est because Chand Ram had died before its pronouncement, the Court held that the Trust had an available appellate remedy. It observed,

“The applicant, after passing of the judgment, seems to be aggrieved of the judgment, which either could have been assailed in an appeal or if there was any error apparent on the face of the record in the judgment, the same could have been sought to be reviewed by the same court.”

The Court further clarified that even if the judgment had been passed after the demise of Chand Ram, the Trust could have filed an appeal against his legal heirs. In this regard, it held,

“Even if the judgment had been passed after the demise of the contesting respondent, against whom ex parte proceedings had been initiated, the applicant was well within its rights to file the appeal against legal heirs of the respondent no. 2.”

The Court noted that instead of availing this remedy, the Trust had chosen to file an application seeking recall of the judgment.

The High Court also took exception to the assertion in the recall application that the judgment had been reserved and delivered after several months without proper updation and hearing. It pointed out that the original judgment itself recorded that the matter had been reserved on December 4, 2025, and pronounced on December 19, 2025—within 15 days.

The Court termed the allegation factually baseless and observed that it cast aspersions on the functioning of the Court. It also expressed concern over the professional conduct of the advocate who had drafted the recall application, noting that the advocate was stated to be the brother and chamber-mate of the counsel who had appeared in the matter. The Court, however, refrained from proceeding further and left it to the counsel to introspect on his professional conduct.

Dismissing the recall application, the High Court held that the Trust had adopted an impermissible course despite the availability of an appeal or review, as the case may be. The Court thus found the application to be “grossly misconceived” and dismissed the application, leaving the judgment undisturbed.