##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

****

CR-9321-2025

Date of decision: 22.12.2025

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd.

. . . . Petitioner

Vs.

Katar Singh

. . . . 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 petitioner.

****

DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of

this Court for setting aside the order dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-7),

whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the petitioner’s application

seeking recall of the earlier order dated 01.09.2025, by which the cross-

examination of PW-1 Katar Singh (workman) was ordered to be treated as Nil.

2. The respondent-workman was terminated from service by the

petitioner-management on account of his alleged involvement in a major

incident of violence and arson that took place at the petitioner’s Manesar

plant in July 2012. An industrial dispute was raised thereafter, which has been

pending adjudication since 2016 before the learned Labour Court-II,

Gurugram.

3. A perusal of the record reveals that PW-1 Katar Singh appeared

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

could not be conducted as the learned Senior Advocate appearing for the

petitioner-management could not attend the proceedings due to illness. The

matter was adjourned to 01.09.2025 with a clear stipulation that it was being

granted as a last opportunity and that in case the opportunity was not

VIVEK PAHWA

2025.12.23 15:46

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-9321-2025 2025:PHHC:177440

availed, the evidence would be deemed to have been closed. On the

adjourned date, i.e., 01.09.2025, the authorised representative of the

petitioner-management again failed to cross-examine PW-1. Consequently,

the learned Labour Court closed the claimant’s evidence by treating the cross-

examination of PW-1 as Nil.

4. An application was thereafter filed by the petitioner seeking recall of

the said order, contending that the Senior Advocate, Shri M.M. Kaushal, could

not conduct the cross-examination due to serious illness and were praying for

one effective opportunity to cross-examine PW-1. Though the authorised

representative of the respondent-workman recorded no objection to the said

prayer, the learned Labour Court dismissed the application by the impugned

order dated 10.11.2025.

5. Assailing the impugned order, learned Senior Counsel for the

petitioner submits that the right of cross-examination is an integral facet of

principles of natural justice and denial thereof would cause serious prejudice

to the petitioner-management. It is further urged that the illness of the Senior

Advocate was a bona fide circumstance beyond the petitioner’s control and

that refusal to permit cross-examination would materially affect the defence

of the management, particularly when the adjudication of the present dispute

is likely to have a cascading effect on nearly 350 similarly placed matters

pending between the parties.

6. There can be no dispute with the proposition that procedural

discipline and expeditious disposal of industrial disputes are matters of

considerable importance. Equally well settled, however, is the principle that

procedure is the handmaid of justice and not its mistress. Cross-examination

of a witness, especially the workman himself, is not a mere formality but a

substantive right, denial whereof may result in serious prejudice and may

ultimately vitiate the adjudication.

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

VIVEK PAHWA

2025.12.23 15:46

I in a tett ge rs itt y t o o ft h the i sa c dc ou cr ua mcy e na tnd Page 2 of 3

Chandigarh

CR-9321-2025 2025:PHHC:177440

sufficient opportunity and had specifically cautioned the petitioner regarding

the consequences of non-utilisation of the same. It is also evident that the

petitioner-management