Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. Vs Ravinder

The pe!!oner has invoked the extraordinary jurisdic!on of this Court for se(ng aside the order dated 14.11.2025 (Annexure P-5), whereby the learned Labour Court rejected the pe!!oner9s applica!on seeking recall of the earlier order dated 29.10.2025, by which the cross-examina!on of PW-1 Ravinder (workman) was ordered to be treated as Nil.

¶12

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!!oner9s 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.

¶13

A perusal of the record reveals that PW-1 Ravinder appeared

¶14

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶15

CR-9690-2025

¶16

-2-

¶17

before the Labour Court and partly cross-examined on 15.10.2025. However, his further cross-examina!on had been deferred at the request of learned Advocate appearing for the pe!!oner-management. The ma>er was adjourned to 29.10.2025 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., 29.10.2025, the authorised representa!ve of the pe!!oner-management again failed to cross-examine PW-1. Consequently, the learned Labour Court closed the claimant9s evidence by trea!ng the cross-examina!on of PW-1 as Nil.

¶18

An applica!on was therea8er ûled 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 respondentworkman recorded no objec!on to the said prayer, the learned Labour Court dismissed the applica!on by the impugned order dated 14.11.2025.

¶19

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 ûde circumstance beyond the pe!!oner9s control and that refusal to permit cross-examina!on would materially aûect the defence of the management, par!cularly when the

¶20

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶21

CR-9690-2025

¶22

-3-

¶23

adjudica!on of the present dispute is likely to have a cascading eûect on nearly 350 similarly placed ma>ers pending between the par!es.

¶24

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. Crossexamina!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.

¶25

In the present case, this Court does not ûnd any patent illegality or perversity in the impugned order, as the learned Labour Court had granted suûcient opportunity and had speciûcally 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.

¶26

However, the ma>er cannot be examined in isola!on. The record shows that the request for recall was supported by a bona ûde explana!on, and the respondent-workman had raised no objec!on to the grant of one opportunity, and the dispute itself has serious ramiûca!ons, not only for the par!es 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 jus!ce outweighing the procedural lapse.

¶27

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

CR-9690-2025

¶29

-4-

¶30

Therefore, this Court is of the considered view that the ends of jus!ce would be be>er served by gran!ng one ûnal and strictly regulated opportunity to the pe!!oner to cross-examine PW-1, while at the same !me compensa!ng for the delay and inconvenience caused to the respondent and ensuring that the proceedings are not protracted further.

¶31

Accordingly, the present pe!!on is disposed of with a direc!on to the learned Presiding Oûcer of the concerned Labour Court to aûord one eûec!ve opportunity to the pe!!oner-management to conduct the cross-examina!on of PW-1 Ravinder, on a date to be ûxed by the Labour Court. This indulgence is made subject to the pe!!oner deposi!ng a sum of ¹25,000/- as costs with the District Legal Services Authority, Gurugram. Deposit of the aforesaid costs shall be a condi!on precedent for availing the opportunity of cross-examina!on. It is made clear that no further opportunity shall be granted on any ground whatsoever.

¶32

( DEEPAK GUPTA ) JUDGE

¶33

December 23, 2025 Nee!ka Tuteja

¶34

Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

¶35

NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.12.23 16:08 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Ravinder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. v. Ravinder

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

(O&M) Atma Ram etc. Vs Sudarshan Kuamr

Punjab State etc. Vs Shavinder Pal Singh

Tek Singh Vs Baldev Singh Andors

Nirmal Singh Vs Paramjit Kaur and Others

Ramesh Alias Ramesh Kumar Vs Satish

Baldev Singh Vs Nachattar Singh