A party’s right to lead evidence cannot be denied solely because proceedings are long-pending.

The petitions arose from a long-pending labour reference.

On 1 November 2025, the Labour Court held the departmental inquiry against the respondent-workman illegal and permitted the petitioner-employer to prove the alleged misconduct by oral and documentary evidence

After the employer was absent on 13 November 2025, the Labour Court allowed the workman’s application to close the employer’s right to lead evidence

The employer later sought restoration of that right, but the Labour Court rejected its application on 5 February 2026, relying principally on the age of the reference and prior adjournments

The employer challenged that order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

The petitions were decided together because they raised an identical issue on the same facts and materials

1. Whether the Labour Court was justified in refusing to reopen the employer’s right to lead evidence principally because the reference was old and had suffered delay.

2. Whether, in the circumstances, the employer should be restored an opportunity to lead evidence subject to directions ensuring expeditious disposal.

The Court exercised its jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution

It applied the principles of natural justice and fair opportunity, holding that the age of proceedings and the need for expedition are relevant but cannot, by themselves, justify denying a party an opportunity to lead evidence—particularly where that opportunity had previously been granted. The court must consider the circumstances in which the right was closed, the party’s subsequent steps, and the prejudice caused by refusal.

No statute or judicial precedent was expressly cited.

The Labour Court had permitted the employer to prove the alleged misconduct after finding the departmental inquiry illegal, but subsequently closed the employer’s evidence and rejected its request to reopen that right primarily because the reference had been pending since 2007

The High Court considered that the employer had applied to reopen its right after learning of the closure and was willing to lead evidence within a fixed timeframe

Denying the opportunity could materially prejudice the employer’s case, while the workman’s interest in avoiding further delay could be protected through strict timelines and a direction against unnecessary adjournments.

It directed the employer to pay ₹1,000 to the respondent, appear on the next hearing date, and avoid unnecessary adjournments; the Labour Court was directed to complete recording the evidence within two months of receiving the order, with day-to-day hearings if necessary.

Rule was made absolute.