CWP No. 17978 of 2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (111) CWP No. 17978 of 2026 Date of Decision: 14.07.2026 M/S. HERO MOTORCORP LIMITED ......Petitioner Versus SANDEEP KUMAR AND OTHERS .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE KIRTI SINGH Present: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rajat Khanna, Advocate and Mr. Ankush Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. **** KIRTI SINGH , J. (ORAL) 1. The present civil writ petition has been filed by the petitioner- Company challenging the impugned order dated 13.05.2026 (Annexure P- 19) passed by the respondent No.2- learned Labour Court, Gurugram, whereby the application dated 09.04.2026 filed by the petitioner-Company seeking rejection of the second evidence by way of affidavit dated 09.03.2026 (Annexure P-15) tendered by respondent No.1-claimant has been dismissed. 2. The present dispute arises out of an industrial dispute raised by respondent No. 1-workman challenging his termination as illegal. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner contends that in the proceedings before it, the Labour Court has committed patent jurisdictional error in dismissing the application moved by the petitioner-Management seeking rejection of the second affidavit by way of examination-in-chief tendered by respondent No.1-workman. While drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure P-10, RITIKA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17978 of 2026 -2- learned Senior counsel contends that it was a matter of record that an earlier affidavit tendered by the workman by way of examination-in-chief stood rejected vide order dated 31.05.2023 on the ground that it travelled beyond the pleadings, and was not in conformity with the settled principles governing affidavits by way of examination-in-chief. It is submitted that notwithstanding the liberty granted by the Labour Court to file a fresh affidavit, the workman has merely re-arranged and reproduced the earlier affidavit while retaining substantially the same defects, and that the affidavit continues to contain legal submissions, references to interlocutory proceedings, judicial orders and other material dehors the pleadings, rendering it contrary to the principles underlying Order XIX Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. It is further submitted that the Labour Court, having once rejected the earlier affidavit on these very grounds, could not have permitted a subsequent affidavit suffering from identical infirmities to be taken on record. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner accordingly prays that the impugned order be set aside and the affidavit in question be rejected at the threshold. In support of his submissions, learned Senior counsel has also placed reliance on the judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in CWP-18675-2023 titled as “Parmod Kumar Vs. M/s Hero Moto Crop. Limited and Others” (Annexure P-14). 3. I have heard learned Senior counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record with his able assistance. 4. At the very outset, it deserves notice that the impugned order herein is purely interlocutory in character and does not more than regulate the manner in which evidence is to be received in the course of adjudication of the industrial dispute pending before the Labour Court. By the impugned RITIKA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17978 of 2026 -3- order, the Labour Court has merely declined to reject the affidavit at the outset, it has not rendered any finding, conclusive or otherwise, on the rights and liabilities of the parties, which remain to be adjudicated upon after evidence led by both sides is duly appreciated. 5. It is by now well settled that supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India exists to ensure that subordinate courts and tribunals function within the bounds of their jurisdiction, and that the said supervisory authority is not in the nature of any appellate remedy. It does not contemplate interference with every procedural order passed in the course of trial, and is to be exercised sparingly, only where the order under challenge discloses patent perversity, jurisdictional error, or a manifest failure of justice. 6. Reverting to the case in hand, the principal grievance of the petitioner, reduce to its essence is that the affidavit in question contains averments beyond the pleadings, argumentative and legal submissions. Even proceeding on the assumption that such objections are available to the petitioner, they do not, by themselves, warrant interference at this interlocutory stage. Whether a particular portion of an affidavit travels beyond the pleading or is otherwise inadmissible is essentially a question touching the admissibility and appreciation of evidence. Such questions falls squarely within the domain of the adjudicative tribunal and are to be considered while recording and appreciating the evidence. The mere circumstance that an affidavit has been permitted to be brought on record does not mean that every statement contained therein stands accepted as legally admissible or that it is liable to be acted upon without further scrutiny. RITIKA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17978 of 2026 -4- 7. Similarly, an affidavit by way of examination-in-chief does not acquire evidentiary sanctity merely by virtue of having been taken on record. Its admissibility, relevance and probative value remain open to scrutiny in accordance with law, and it is always open to the petitioner to raise all such objections before the Labour Court, which shall be duty bound to decide the same at the appropriate stage while appreciating the evidence and adjudicating the reference. Viewed thus, no irreversible prejudice can be said to have been occasioned to the petitioner merely because the Labour Court has, for the present, declined to reject the affidavit at the threshold. 8. Insofar as reliance has been placed by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner upon the principles underlying Order XIX Rule 3 of CPC, the same, in the opinion of this Court, is equally of no avail to the petitioner at this stage. Even assuming that certain portions of the affidavit may not strictly confirm to the requirements governing affidavit evidence under Order XIX Rule 3, the question whether such portions ought to be excluded from consideration is a matter that squarely falls within the domain of the Labour Court while appreciating the evidence on record, and not one that this Court while exercising supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, would ordinary undertake to examine at the threshold, particularly when it has not demonstrated that the discretion exercised by the Tribunal is wholly arbitrary, perverse, or without jurisdiction. 9. Further, the contention founded upon the earlier order dated 31.05.2023 is equally misconceived. The said order, while rejecting the affidavit then tendered, simultaneously granted liberty to the workman to file a fresh affidavit in accordance with law. Whether the subsequently tendered affidavit substantially confirms to the liberty so granted was a matter that RITIKA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17978 of 2026 -5- fell for consideration before the Labour Court itself, which having applied its mind to the subsequent affidavit, and exercised its discretion in permitting the same to be taken on record. Trite to say that this Court does not, in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction, sit as a Court of first appeal over such procedural discretion merely because another view may also conceivably be possible. 10. Similarly, the reliance placed upon the judgment passed in the case of Parmod Kumar (Supra) does not further the case of the petitioner either. The said judgment merely upheld the exercise of the discretion by the Labour Court on the facts obtaining in that case, and cannot be read as laying down any inflexible proposition of law that every subsequent affidavit alleged to suffer from defects similar to an earlier one must in all circumstances be rejected, irrespective of its nature and the discretion exercised by the adjudicating authority on the facts of the individual case before it. 11. It is also significant to note that no prejudice that is incapable of being remedied in the course of trial has been demostrated before this Court. The petitioner continues to possess the right to cross-examine the workman, to object to any part of the affidavit alleged to be inadmissible or beyond the pleadings, and to urge before the Labour Court that such material be eschewed from consideration while adjudicating the reference. 12. In the opinion of this Court, entertaining a challenge to every procedural order regulating the recording of evidence would inevitably result in piecemeal adjudication of the industrial disputes and would unnecessarily impede their expeditious disposal, an outcome that the scheme of the Industrial Dispute Act plainly seeks to avoid. RITIKA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh CWP No. 17978 of 2026 -6- 13. For the reasons afore-said, this Court finds no patent perversity, jurisdictional error or manifest failure of justice in the exercise of discretion by the Labour Court so as to warrant interference under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 14. Accordingly, the writ petition, being devoid of merits, is dismissed. However, it is clarified that the observations made hereinabove are confined solely to the challenge laid to the impugned interlocutory order and shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the admissibility, relevance or evidentiary value of any statement contained in the affidavits in question, all of which shall be independently examined and decided by the Labour Court at the appropriate stage strictly in accordance with law. 15. Civil miscellaneous application pending, if any, shall also stand disposed of. (KIRTI SINGH) JUDGE July 14, 2026 Ritika Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No RITIKA 2026.07.16 16:58 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh