GHCL LTD Vs. GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) With consent of parties, the main matter is taken up for hearing today.

(2.) By the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing and setting aside the order dtd. 10/10/2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (the Tribunal), in Reference (I.T.) No.8 of 2014, whereby the petitioner is asked to produce certain documents in order to decide the industrial dispute. It is the case of the petitioner-Company, that the award passed by the Tribunal for production of the documents is erroneous and illegal.

(3.) Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing for the petitioner-Company has submitted that the documents, which are ordered to be produced by the Tribunal are absolutely irrelevant for deciding the controversy since the members/workmen of the respondent No.1-Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha ('the Union' for short) are employed by the contractors and the burden lies on them to produce the documents. He has submitted that the Tribunal should have first applied its mind to determine the relevancy of documents and only after concluding that the documents are necessary to decide the dispute or the terms of reference should have ordered the production of documents. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot be compelled to produce the documents, which are not relevant or have not bearing for adjudication and without examining the relevancy of such documents, the Tribunal should not have passed the order directing them to produce it. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay reported in the cases of U.B.S. Publishers and Distributors, Ltd. vs. Industrial Workers Union and another 1997 (3) L.L.N. 168 and 20th Century Fox Corporation (India) (Private) Ltd. vs. F.H.Lala and others , dtd. 3/3/1973 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2408 of 1972. It is also submitted that it is the policy of the petitioner-Company not to maintain the record, hence no documents can be produced by it. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order is required to be set aside.