Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Katar Singh And Another

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

**** 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 crossexamination 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

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 crossexamination 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

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 failed to make any alternative arrangement for crossexamination despite knowledge of the illness of its Senior Counsel. 8.

However, the matter cannot be examined in isolation. The record shows that the request for recall was supported by a bona fide explanation, and the respondent-workman had raised no objection to the grant of one opportunity, and the dispute itself has serious ramifications, not only for the parties but also for a large number of similarly situated cases. In such circumstances, refusal to grant even a single opportunity may result in miscarriage of justice outweighing the procedural lapse. 9.

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of justice would be better served by granting one final and strictly regulated opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine PW-1, while at the same time compensating for the delay and inconvenience caused to the respondent and ensuring that the proceedings are not protracted further. 10.

Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the learned Presiding Officer of the concerned Labour Court to afford one effective opportunity to the petitioner-management to conduct the crossexamination of PW-1 Katar Singh, on a date to be fixed by the Labour Court. This indulgence is made subject to the petitioner depositing a sum of ₹25,000/- as costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Gurugram. Deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be a condition precedent for availing the opportunity of cross-examination. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted on any ground whatsoever.

(DEEPAK GUPTA) 22.12.2025 JUDGE
 Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes Whether reportable No