IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-28178-2025 (O&M)

Date of Decision: 22.09.2025 PATANJALI AYURVEDA LIMITED -APPLICANT/PETITIONER V/S STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI Present: Mr. Jeevan Gautam, Advocate with Mr. Punit Jain, Advocate, for the applicant/petitioner.

Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana.

****

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

CM-14092-CWP-2025

1. Leave granted.

CWP-28178-2025

2. Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-management seeks a quashing of an interim order dated 13.08.2025 (Annexure P-1), whereby, the application to lead additional evidence was dismissed by the learned Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Panipat (respondent no.2).

3. Succinctly stated, the petitioner-management is facing proceedings before the learned Tribunal concerned, in a reference originated on account of a demand notice served by the workman (respondent no.3 herein). After framing of the issue, both, the workman and the petitioner-management led their respective evidence. The workman concluded his evidence on dated 20.11.2024. Thereafter, the petitioner-management was granted 3-4 effective opportunities to lead their evidence. Finally, on dated 15.01.2025, a last opportunity was afforded to the petitioner-management. However, on account of failure on the part of the petitioner-management to conclude its evidence, again the matter was adjourned for 05.03.2025. On the said date as well, the petitioner-management failed to close its evidences. Thereupon, vide a court order, the evidence of the petitioner-management was closed on dated 05.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner-management filed an application on dated 26.03.2025 for granting one more opportunity to the petitioner-management to lead evidence. However, that application was dismissed, vide the order dated 13.08.2025, which was put to challenge before this Court.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while drawing attention of this Court towards various zimni orders, submits that there was no endeavour on the part of the petitioner-management to delay the conclusion of the proceeding in the reference in question.

5. He further submits that the first opportunity, was granted to lead evidence on dated 11.12.2024 and thereafter, the evidence was closed within three months, i.e. on 05.03.2025. Thereafter, the petitioner- management within 20 days filed an application to lead additional evidence i.e. on 26.03.2025, which clearly reflects that all due care was taken by the petitioner-management to produce the evidence, therefore, the learned Tribunal concerned, ought to have granted the petitioner-

management at least one opportunity to defend themselves.

6. He also submits that in case the impugned order is allowed to be sustained, then it would tantamount to scuttle the principle of natural justice.

7. Notice of motion, at this stage, to respondents no.1 and 2 only.

8. Mr. Bhupender Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana, accepts notice on behalf of respondents no.1 and 2 and waives service.

9. Considering the fact that the only issue involved in the instant matter, is with regard to the leading of additional evidence, and there seems to be no inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner- management, therefore, at this stage, without issuing notice to the workman (respondent no.3), which would unnecessarily burden him with the litigation expenses, an interference in the impugned order is being made by this Court.

10. The facts as observed above reflects that there is no inordinate delay on the part of the petitioner-management. They should have been given adequate opportunity to defend themselves by leading evidence. A perusal of the record shows that the petitioner-management was granted only three months time to conclude its evidence. Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner-management be granted one more opportunity to lead the evidence to defend