/ORDER

Subrata Talukdar, JThe short point that has arisen for consideration in this writ petition is the refusal of the Ld. Second Labour Court vide its order impugned No.29 dated 17th August, 2015 in Case No.10 of 2011 under section 10 (1B)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (for short the 1947 Act), to allow the application of the present petitioner/workman for production of documents considered necessary by the workman to the adjudication of the industrial dispute.

2. Mr. Adhikari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/workman submits that the proceeding before the Ld. Second Labour Court arose out of the failure of a conciliation proceeding on the complaint of the workman on being denied his monthly salaries on and from August, 2009. The petitioner claims to be a workman employed by and at the students hostel, viz. Prantik Hostel, of the Indian Institute of Social Welfare and Business Management/respondent no.1 to the present petition.

3. Mr. Adhikari argues that the petitioner has discharged his duties regularly at the hostel since December 1995 till July 2009. The petitioner was however refused permanent status by the respondent no.1/Institute. Subsequent to the stoppage of his salaries on and from 2009, the petitioner was also forced to vacate his residential quarter at Prantik Hostel.

4. The stand taken before the Ld. Second Labour Court by the respondent no.1/Institute is of unequivocal denial. Mr. Ranjay De, learned counsel appearing for the respondent no.1/Institute, has taken this Court to several portions of the deposition recorded on behalf of the petitioner/workman before the Ld. Second Labour Court. According to the deposition on record, the petitioner has claimed absorption on permanent basis under the respondent no.1/Institute. However, the petitioner has produced no document to show that at any point of time the petitioner was paid his salaries by the respondent no.1/Institute.

5. Emphasising that the petitioner was suo motu given appointment by the boarders/students of the hostel for managing their hostel requirements, Mr. De argues that the management of the respondent no.1/Institute is not in any manner connected with the appointment of the petitioner at the hostel and therefore, cannot take any responsibility for any personal service rendered by the petitioner to the students/boarders.

6. Mr. De submits that the application filed by the petitioner before the Ld. Second Labour Court under Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure read with Rule 24 of the Industrial Dispute (Central) Rules, 1957, was correctly rejected by the Ld. Labour Court since, there can be no roving and/or fishing enquiry permitted to be carried out under the garb of production of evidence on a point on which no case has been made out by the petitioner. Mr. De submits that it is for the writ petitioner himself to first provide details of the salaries and other service benefits which he claims to have been receiving as an employee of the respondent no.1/Institute. The petitioner cannot be permitted to use Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure to seek a direction upon the respondent no.1/Institute to create documents or to search for non-existent documents which, according to the petitioner, purport to show the legitimacy of his assumed relationship with the respondent no.1/Institute.

7. Notwithstanding the decisions relied upon by Mr. Adhikari, learned counsel for the petitioner, as reported in AIR 2001 Rajasthan 356, AIR 1980 Supreme Court 511 and AIR 1972 Supreme Court 2379 on the point that any/every document which will throw light on a matter and although such document/documents may not be admissible in evidence, having regard to the relevance of the documents concerned the Ld. Trial Court (in this case the Ld. Second Labour Court) ought not to have avoided its responsibility to direct production of the documents, Mr. De elucidates the law as applicable to the facts of the present case by relying on the authority of In Re: Kinariwala and Mighty Labour Association reported in 1993(1) LLN 677. The relevant extract is reproduced below:-

"However, before the Labour Court could order production and inspection of documents, it has to be satisfied as to the relevancy of such documents on the basis of the material that may be produced before it. This can be done by the applicant seeking production by setting out the necessary facts and contentions in the application, pointing out the necessity for producing those documents having regard to their nature and the manner in which they are to be relied upon. The power conferred on the industrial forum for getting the documents produced, is not intended to enable any litigant to embark upon a fishing inquiry, with a hope to search for some material on which reliance could be placed. This is not to say that in a fit case, after the appropriate material is placed on record and the necessity for production is pointed out, the Tribunal cannot order production of relevant documents, which would be necessary for the purpose of the adjudication of the dispute. It is obvious from the contents of the application made by the respondent that no effort whatsoever was made to indicate as to for what purpose the production was being sought and in what manner the documents were intended to be relied upon. The application for production, in the instant case, did not contain any material, to which the Labour Court could have applied its mind to determine the relevancy of the documents and to come to the conclusion whether the production should be ordered or not. If the purpose behind getting the documents mentioned at item(1) of the application was to bring home the point that the financial condition of the petitioner was sound, then that purpose is, obviously, already served by the endorsement made on behalf of the petitioner, below that application; and, even before us, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner categorically stated that the petitioner will never put up any defence of financial condition not being sound, because, in fact, the condition of the petitioner was sound enough to meet with any demand, which may be countenanced by the Labour Court on tenable grounds."

8. Mr. De points out that the above principles were earlier noticed and reiterated in The 20th Century-Fox Corp. (India) (P) Ltd vs. F.H.Lala & Ors., (1974) 2 LabLJ 156.

9. Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court upon noticing the language of Order 11 Rule 12 of the Code of Civil Procedure which, inter alia, permits the applicant to seek documents which are in the possession of or, in the power of another party, relating to any matter in question in a proceeding, is of the view that the provision requires to be read in the facts of the present case by applying the observations In Re: Kinariwala and Mighty Labour Association .

10. This Court is also of the view that for the purpose of seeking production of a document on the ground of relevance, it is first incumbent on the applicant/the present petitioner to provide even an iota of material in support of such claim for production. In the facts of this case the petitioner has failed to provide any details, leave alone the minimum evidence, to persuade the Ld. Second Labour Court to call for production of documents in support thereof.

11. For the above reasons the order impugned No. 29 dated 17th August, 2015 of the Ld. Second Labour Court warrants no interference.

12. Wp 3130(W) of 2016 stands dismissed.

13. There will be, however, no order as to costs.

14. Let a copy of this judgement along with the Lower Court Record (LCR) be sent down to the Ld. Second Labour Court forthwith.

15. Urgent Xerox certified photocopies of this judgment, if applied for, be given to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.