Punjab-Haryana High Court
Maruti Suzuki India Ltd vs Ravinder on 23 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
****
111 (1) CR-9690-2025
Date of Decision.:23.12.2025
Maru, Suzuki India Ltd. .....Pe,,oner
Vs.
Ravinder .....Respondent
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA
Present:- Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Gursher Bhandal and Ms. Kudrit Kaur Sara, Advocates,
for the pe!!oner.
****
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)
The pe!!oner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdic!on of this Court for se(ng aside the order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the pe!!oner's applica!on seeking recall of the earlier order dated 29.10.2025, by which the cross-examina!on of PW-1 Ravinder (workman) was ordered to be treated as Nil.
2. The respondent-workman was terminated from service by the pe!!oner-management on account of his alleged involvement in a major incident of violence and arson that took place at the pe!!oner's Manesar plant in July 2012. An industrial dispute was raised therea8er, which has been pending adjudica!on since 2016 before the learned Labour Court-II, Gurugram.
3. A perusal of the record reveals that PW-1 Ravinder appeared 1 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:21:29 ::: CR-9690-2025 -2- before the Labour Court and partly cross-examined on 15.10.2025. However, his further cross-examina!on had been deferred at the request of learned Advocate appearing for the pe!!oner-management. The ma>er was adjourned to 29.10.2025 with a clear s!pula!on that it was being granted as a last opportunity and that in case the opportunity was not availed, the evidence would be deemed to have been closed. On the adjourned date, i.e., 29.10.2025, the authorised representa!ve of the pe!!oner-management again failed to cross-examine PW-1. Consequently, the learned Labour Court closed the claimant's evidence by trea!ng the cross-examina!on of PW-1 as Nil.
4. An applica!on was therea8er filed by the pe!!oner seeking recall of the said order, contending that it was mutually agreed that the remaining cross-examina!on of the witness could be completed on the next date. Though the authorised representa!ve of the respondent- workman recorded no objec!on to the said prayer, the learned Labour Court dismissed the applica!on by the impugned order dated 14.11.2025.
5. Assailing the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel for the pe!!oner submits that the right of cross-examina!on is an integral facet of principles of natural jus!ce and denial thereof would cause serious prejudice to the pe!!oner-management. It is further urged that the illness of the Senior Advocate was a bona fide circumstance beyond the pe!!oner's control and that refusal to permit cross-examina!on would materially affect the defence of the management, par!cularly when the 2 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:21:30 ::: CR-9690-2025 -3- adjudica!on of the present dispute is likely to have a cascading effect on nearly 350 similarly placed ma>ers pending between the par!es.
6. There can be no dispute with the proposi!on that procedural discipline and expedi!ous disposal of industrial disputes are ma>ers of considerable importance. Equally well se>led, however, is the principle that procedure is the handmaid of jus!ce and not its mistress. Cross- examina!on of a witness, especially the workman himself, is not a mere formality but a substan!ve right, denial whereof may result in serious prejudice and may ul!mately vi!ate the adjudica!on.
7. In the present case, this Court does not find any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order, as the learned Labour Court had granted sufficient opportunity and had specifically cau!oned the pe!!oner regarding the consequences of non-u!lisa!on of the same. It is also evident that the pe!!oner-management failed to make any alterna!ve arrangement for cross-examina!on despite knowledge of the illness of its Senior Counsel.
8. However, the ma>er cannot be examined in isola!on. The record shows that the request for recall was supported by a bona fide explana!on, and the respondent-workman had raised no objec!on to the grant of one opportunity, and the dispute itself has serious ramifica!ons, not only for the par!es but also for a large number of similarly situated cases. In such circumstances, refusal to grant even a single opportunity may result in miscarriage of jus!ce outweighing the procedural lapse.
3 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:21:30 ::: CR-9690-2025 -4-
9. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of jus!ce would be be>er served by gran!ng one final and strictly regulated opportunity to the pe!!oner to cross-examine PW-1, while at the same !me compensa!ng for the delay and inconvenience caused to the respondent and ensuring that the proceedings are not protracted further.
10. Accordingly, the present pe!!on is disposed of with a direc!on to the learned Presiding Officer of the concerned Labour Court to afford one effec!ve opportunity to the pe!!oner-management to conduct the cross-examina!on of PW-1 Ravinder, on a date to be fixed by the Labour Court. This indulgence is made subject to the pe!!oner deposi!ng a sum of ₹25,000/- as costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Gurugram. Deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be a condi!on precedent for availing the opportunity of cross-examina!on. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted on any ground whatsoever.
( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE December 23, 2025 Nee!ka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No 4 of 4 ::: Downloaded on - 24-12-2025 11:21:30 :::