RAJESH GARG Vs. LABOUR COURT CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This writ petition is connected with C.W.P. No. 1071 of 1987 which has been decided by this Court just before taking up the present writ petition. For actual aspects of the matter, the reference can be made to the decisions rendered in the earlier writ petition.

(2.) Present writ petition has been filed by the workman who was respondent No.3 in C.W.P.No. 1071 of 1987. During the pendency of the proceedings, after the matter had been remanded back, the respondent management had made an application asking the workman to supply information regarding his assets. Certain interrogatories were served on him which are contained in Annexure P6. The application is stated to have been made under Order 11, Rule 1 read with Section 151 CPC. The Labour Court has passed an order on 29/10/1986 which is impugned in this writ petition directing the respondents to tender the documentary evidence as available with them and also file an affidavit regarding other averments. The application made by the respondent-management was opposed by the petitioner workman. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court acted wholly beyond jurisdiction. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, has submitted that since the petitioner has been gainfully employed throughout the proceedings, the information is necessary to prove the plea of the management that the petitioner is not entitled. He further submitted that the writ petition is not maintainable at this Court while exercising jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India does not sit as a Court of appeal. In support of this submission he has relied upon Beant Singh v. Union of India 1977 C.L.J. 17. Furthermore, no manifest injustice has been done to the petitioner. Therefore, this Court would not exercise jurisdiction under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submitted that there is no error apparent on the face of the order. Therefore, this Court would not interfere. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. I am of the considered opinion that the order passed by the Labour Court is wholly without jurisdiction. The application filed by the respondent management is in the nature of a fishing enquiry. An effort has been made to scandalise the petitioner by asking the sort of questions which are wholly irrelevant for the controversy.

(3.) The petitioner has been asked as to whether he had constructed his own house. How much money he had spent on the building materials, electrical fitting, painting and white-washing. He has been asked to give details of the amount paid to the contractor. The petitioner has even been asked as to when he was married? How many children he had along with the dates of birth? He has been asked to supply details about the education being received by his children. He has even been asked about the monthly expenses of petrol of his scooter. The application thereafter questions the petitioner about his earning as an Oath Commissioner. The petitioner has been asked to state his monthly ration bills. He has been asked as to whether he was the owner of the T.V. set and Fridge. He has been asked to explain the source of money for purchase of these things. The petitioner filed a detailed reply. It was specifically submitted that the interrogatories do not relate to subject of gainful employment of the workman. It was further stated as follows: