CROMPTON GREAVES LTD Vs. AMARJIT KAUR SADHUSINGH SARNA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ADVOCATE Shri A.S.Shelke concedes that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are formal parties and both the lawyers have consented for final hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal without notice to Respondent Nos.2 and 3.

(2.) THE facts relevant for the purpose of present Letters Patent Appeal can be summarised as follows. Appellant is a company, wherein Respondent No.1 was employed since 1980 as Steno-typist. Admittedly, she was duly upgraded/ promoted in due course till 1996. It was her grievance that she was never upgraded/ promoted from 1997 onwards, although she was allowed regular annual increments right upto 2004. Feeling aggrieved that she is superseded, she filed a complaint before Industrial Court, Ahmednagar (ULP No.101/2004) complaining of Unfair Labour Practices on the part of the appellant-company under items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV to MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (for brevity's sake, "the said Act"). While the matter was pending before the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal, complainant filed an application (paperbook page 69), praying for directions to the company to produce certain documents. The list contains seven items and items 1, 3, 4 and 5 are pertaining to pay-sheets and muster roll of various employees (in all 18, 12 in service and 6 retired). Item No.2 pertains to service details of those employees and item Nos.6 and 7 are pertaining to performance appraisal of complainant and others. Application was resisted by the company and a copy of say is at paperbook pages 72-73. The main contention challenging the prayer for directions to produce the documents, was that the application is vague and it does not specifically make out a case as to how the documents sought to be got produced, are relevant. The notice for production of documents is thus not tenable. Otherwise also, it was contended that the documents are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the complaint. Learned Member of the Tribunal disposed of the application vide order delivered on 22.9.2005. It is evident that the application is partly allowed. The operative part reproduced hereinbelow will suffice the purpose to demonstrate the extent to which the application is allowed.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for respective parties. The submissions are in harmony with the contentions in the notice for production and reply to the same. Advocate Shri Shelke placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of 20th Century Fox Corpn. v. F.H. Lala, 1975 LAB.I.C. 517, for following proposition: