( 1 ) THE 3rd respondent in the Writ Petition has filed this appeal assailing the order of the learned Single Judge allowing the Writ petition. Brief facts of the case are: the 1st respondent herein got a reference to the Labour Court on the following question. Are the 64 workmen as detailed in the annexure appended to this Government Order working in the Manipal Power Press, manipal represented by the Manipal Printers and Publishers employees Association, Udupi, justified in demanding that they should also to be considered as employees (newspaper employees) of the Manipal Publishers and Printers (Private) Ltd. , manipal, from the date of their appointments with all consequential benefits arising out of various Wage Board recommendations and awards for journalists? if not, to what other relief these employees are entitled? after reference, the case was started and some of the witnesses were examined. When one of the witnesses (MW B1) was being cross-examined, a petition is filed under Section 11 (1) and 11 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by the 1st respondent seeking a direction to the appellant herein and the 2nd respondent to produce certain documents:a. Attendance register of workmen from 1981-1992. b. Pay register of workmen from 1981-1992. Particulars of records called for from the impfeaded 2nd respondents are as follows:a. Attendance registers of composing section and other sections where 64 workmen whose names are mentioned in the order of reference from 1981-1992. b. Leave registers, from 1981-1992, and c. Leave application submitted by the 64 workmen on various , dates from 1981-1992. The same was objected to on the ground that the application filed is hopelessly belated. The documents called for are old and not required to be preserved till date and that they are vulminous. The application is filed to cause delay in the proceedings and attempt is made to create confusion and make a mess of the proceedings. The records called for are unnecessary to decide the issue involved in the case. The documents called for are of a period anterior o'r subsequent to the date of reference. A similar application filed in IA 15 was dismissed by the Tribunal by its order dated 9. 6. 97. Similar objections were taken by the other party also. The Tribunal after elaborately considering all the points, dismissed the IA holding that the case is posted for cross-examination of MW1 and his cross- examination is yet to be completed and at that stage the application is filed. Further, it observed that the onus of proof on the issues mentioned in IA 5 is on the management. Assailing that order, Writ petition is filed. Learned Single Judge, allowed the Writ Petition holding that the reasons given by the Tribunal is not proper. Aggrieved by that, the present appeal is filed. Learned Counsel for the appellant contended that, to decide the points referred, the documents are not necessary as they are old documents and further, similar application filed was already dismissed and the learned Single Judge erred in allowing the Writ Petition. Learned Counsel for the contesting respondent 1 contended that the documents are necessary for trial. Therefore, the learned Single judge was right in allowing the !a. There are no merits in the writ appeals and the same is liable to be dismissed. In view of the rival contentions, the important question of law that arises for consideration is whether the documents directed to be produced by the appellant and the 2nd respondent are relevant for determination of the issue involved in the case and whether the application can be allowed. To appreciate the above contention, it is relevant to look into Section 11 (1) and Section 11 (3) of the Act which are as follows: section 11 (1): subject to any rules that may be made in this behalf, an arbitrator, a Board, Court, Labour Court, Tribunal or National tribunal shall follow such procedure as the arbitrator or other authority concerned may think