##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

****

111 (2) CR-9691-2025

Date of Decision.:23.12.2025

Maru, Suzuki India Ltd. …..Pe,,oner

Vs.

Surender Malik .….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 29.10.2025 (Annexure P-6), whereby

the learned Labour Court rejected the pe!!oner’s applica!on seeking recall

of the earlier order dated 04.09.2025, by which the cross-examina!on of

PW-1 Surender Malik (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 Surender Malik

1 of 4

::: Downloaded on - 11-01-2026 15:04:32 :::

CR-9691-2025 -2-

appeared before the Labour Court on 07.08.2025. However, his cross-

examina!on could not be conducted as the learned Senior Advocate

appearing for the pe!!oner-management could not a>end the proceedings

due to illness. The ma>er was adjourned to 04.09.2025 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., 04.09.2025, 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 29.10.2025.

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 - 11-01-2026 15:04:33 :::

CR-9691-2025 -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 resp