SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA vs M/S. NIDAN MOULD PLAST & ANR.

Judgment text excerpt

$~2 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI % Date of Decision: 22nd, August, 2025 + CM(M) 3091/2024 & CM APPL. 43946/2024 SANTOSH KUMAR SHUKLA .....Petitioner Through: Mr. Pradeep Kumar Shukla, Mr. Mukesh Joshi and Mr. Yuvan Raj Gandhi, Advocates versus M/S. NIDAN MOULD PLAST & ANR. .....Respondent Through: Mr. Akarsh Sharma, Advocate for R-1 Ms. Vaishali Gupta, Panel Counsel (Civil), GNCTD/R-2 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANOJ JAIN J U D G M E N T (oral) 1. The point involved in the present petition is a very short one. 2. On 19.01.2024, Reference in question was taken up by the concerned learned Labour Court and one witness from the side of the Management appeared for the purposes of making deposition before the Court. It seems that workman was having reservation about the aforesaid witness as he wanted one Mr. Ramesh Chand Gupta to enter into witness box from the side of Management and did not want Mr. Ravish Gupta, whom the Management wanted to examine in their defence, to grace the witness box. 3. Fact remains that such request was disallowed and Mr. Ravish Gupta, same day, was examined and partly cross-examined also. 4. Since the authorized representative of workman was asking some irrelevant questions, the learned Labour Court asked him to confine to the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CM(M) 3091/2024 1 By:DINESH CHANDRA Signing Date:25.08.2025 15:24:18 relevant questions and it was at that stage that there was complete non-cooperation from the side of workman as he claimed that he did not want to further cross-examine the witness and insisted for adjournment to confront the witness with certain documents. 5. The learned Labour Court, however, noticing that there was no willingness from the side of workman to cross-examine the witness, turned down such