The right to cross-examination is a substantive right, which should not be compromised due to administrative confusion regarding court procedures.

JUDGMENT

Prathiba M. Singh, J. (Oral)--This hearing has been done in physical Court. Hybrid mode is permitted in cases where permission is being sought from the Court.

2. None appears for the Respondent-Workman. Advance copy of this petition has been served upon the Workman by email on lcf223@gmail.com and the proof of service is attached. The said email is stated to be the email address of the authorised representative of the Workman. In addition, when the matter was taken up in the morning ld. Counsel for the Petitioner- Management was requested to contact the authorised representative of the Workman so that he can enter appearance in the matter. However, the ld. Counsel for the Management after telephonically contacting the authorised representative of the Workman informs this Court that the authorised representative is stated to be busy in another case before another Court, and would not be able to appear in this matter. Accordingly, this Court proceeds further in the matter.

3. Heard the ld. Counsel for the Petitioner. The present writ petition has been filed on behalf of the Management challenging the order dated 22nd October, 2021 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-IV, Rouse Avenue Courts, Delhi by which the right of cross-examination of the Management has been closed in the claim preferred by the Workman/Respondent bearing LIR No. 1146/2019 titled Om Prakash v. M/s. Nandi Gas Distribution.

4. Mr. Khatri, ld. Counsel for the Management submits that on 22nd October 2021, when the matter was taken up and the impugned order was passed, as per the duty Roster announced by the Principal District and Sessions Judge, the Court was to hold virtual hearings. However, the hearing was held in physical court. He submits that despite he waiting for the virtual court proceedings to commence and having made repeated attempts and requests to join virtually, there was no provision qua the same that was made available to him. He submits that he contacted the Reader at about 11:20 A.M., and was informed that the Presiding Officer is holding Court physically. He then deputed his colleague to appear before the Court and request for an adjournment in the matter. However, the said adjournment was refused and an order closing the Management's right to cross-examination was passed by the Presiding Officer. It is this order that he wishes to assail in the present petition.

5. A perusal of the order on the previous date dated 23rd September, 2021, passed by the Presiding Officer, shows that the Workman was examined-in-chief on the said date, and a copy of the affidavit in evidence of the Workman was supplied to the authorised representative of the Management for cross-examination on the next date. The matter was then adjourned to 22nd October, 2021 for the cross-examination of the Workman by the Management. The said order dated 23rd September 2021 reads:

"WW-1 is examined-in-chief and his cross-examination is deferred as copy of affidavit supplied today to the AR for the Management.

An application filed on behalf of the workman for seeking direction to the management to produce the record of the workman. Copy supplied. Heard and allowed.

Management is directed to produce the record of the workman on the next date of hearing.

Put up for cross-examination of workman on 22.10.2021."

Thereafter, the duty Roster for the month of October, 2021, which was announced by the Principal District and Sessions Judge for Rouse Avenue Courts Complex on 29th September 2021, clearly shows that only for the following dates - 4th October, 2021, 6th October, 2021, 8th October, 2021, 11th October, 2021, 16th October, 2021, 21st Oc