IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: May 08, 2025 Pronounced on: May 12, 2025 CR No.2392-2025 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. . . . . Petitioner Vs.

Ram Niwas . . . . RESPONDENT * * * *

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Argued By:- Mr. Ashish Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gursher Bhandal and Mr. Mehtab Bhatti, Advocates for the petitioner.

Mr. Tejasvi Sheokand, Advocate for the respondent.

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

Reference No.208 of 2016 is pending for adjudication before learned Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court-II, Gurugram. Petitioner herein is the applicant/management; whereas respondent – Ram Niwas herein is the claimant before the Tribunal. Petitioner is aggrieved by an order dated 15.04.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Tribunal, whereby an application for seeking permission to lead additional evidence has been dismissed.

2.1 As per case of the petitioner, respondent was appointed as an Apprentice in the year 2005 in the petitioner - company, engaged in the business of manufacturing automobiles, with one of its plant at Manesar - Gurugram. Respondent was working as Foreman thereat, when his services were terminated on 16.08.2012.

2.2 Giving the background facts, it is submitted by the petitioner that due to suspending of a workman - Jiya Lal from service on 18.07.2012, the Trade Union intervened, adopted pressure tactics and used coercive methods. A large mob consisting of 1000 workmen assembled at the gate, blocked the entrance to the administrative block, brutally attacked and caused grievous injuries to the staff of the company. The administrative block was put to fire by the workmen, which spread all over and one of the senior office bearers was burnt to death, whereas various others were brutally injured. It is alleged that respondent was one of such workmen and after making all the necessary statutory compliances, his services were terminated vide speaking order dated 16.08.2012.

2.3 Respondent served a demand notice dated 24.06.2015 under Section 2A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The conciliation process initiated by the said respondent-workman was beyond limitation and as such, the matter was referred to Labour Court at Gurugram. As per the own case of the petitioner, respondent-workman submitted his claim statement on 24.10.2016. Interim relief sought by him was declined vide order dated 20.02.2018 (Annexure P-2), against which he approached this High court by filing CWP No.12449 of 2018. Said CWP was disposed of by this Court on 17.07.2018 vide Annexure P-3 by giving directions to learned Tribunal to decide the main reference expeditiously and preferably within a period of 06 months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. Issues were framed by the Labour Court, Gurugram on 06.09.2018 and workman- respondent closed his evidence on 29.07.2019. The petitioner-company concluded its evidence on 08.10.2021 and the matter remained pending for arguments, when petitioner moved an application dated 20.03.2023 seeking permission to lead additional evidence in the shape of videos, documents/letters and cross-examination of the respondent-workman in another matter, wherein he had admitted his involvement in the nefarious activities, which was subject matter of adjudication before the Labour Court, in order to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment on the issues involved. However, the said application has been rejected by the learned Tribunal by way of impugned order.

3. Assailing the aforesaid order, it is contended by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that additional evidence sought to be produced is very crucial so as to enable the Court to pronounce the judgment, inasmuch as similarly situated workmen, more than 350 in number, have filed similar cases and so the present case will have direct bearing on the said bunch of cases. it is further submitted that cross-examination of the respondent in other case was conducted on 30.11.2022, whereas the