An Industrial Tribunal cannot order production of documents without examining their relevance and without a supporting affidavit. The application for production of documents must contain sufficient information to enable the Tribunal to determine the relevancy of the documents and ascertain whether inspection should be allowed.

Headnote:
INDUSTRIAL DISPUTES ACT - PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS - RELEVANCY - INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL - JURISDICTION - CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, ORDER XI - AFFIDAVIT.
Fact of the Case:

The Union filed an application for production of documents in an industrial dispute before the Industrial Tribunal, without providing any specific reasons for the necessity and relevance of the documents sought. The Tribunal, without examining the relevance of the documents, ordered their production. The company challenged the order, contending that the application was incompetent and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to pass such an order without a supporting affidavit.
Finding of the Court:

The court held that the Industrial Tribunal's order for production of documents was without jurisdiction as it was not founded on any material. The court emphasized the need for the applicant to provide sufficient information in the application to enable the Tribunal to determine the relevancy of the documents and ascertain whether inspection should be allowed.
Issues: 1. Whether the Industrial Tribunal had jurisdiction to order production of documents without examining their relevance and without a supporting affidavit? 2. Whether the application for production of documents contained sufficient material to enable the Tribunal to determine the relevancy of the documents?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Industrial Tribunal's power to order production of documents is derived from section 11(3)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, which is to be exercised in the same manner as the powers of a civil court under Order XI of the Code of Civil Procedure. 2. Under Order XI, Rule 18, the right to seek inspection is confined to documents referred to in the pleadings or affidavits of the party against whom the right is claimed. 3. The applicant must establish that they are entitled to inspect the documents and that the documents are in the possession of the party against whom the order for inspection is sought. 4. The Tribunal must be satisfied as to the relevancy of the documents before ordering their production. 5. A party cannot be permitted to embark on a fishing or roving inquiry in the hope that some material will come to hand on the basis of which they can set out a case.
Final Decision: The court allowed the petition and set aside the Industrial Tribunal's order for production of documents.

JUDGMENT

Mukhi J. – By this Civil Application under Article 226 of the Constitution the petitioners, 20th Century-Fox Corporation (India) Private Limited, seek to challenge the validity of the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Bombay, dated October 16, 1972, whereby the previous order passed on July 12, 1972 was maintained by the Tribunal. It is to be noticed that the order relates to an application made by the Union – the Foreign film Distributors Union – for production of certain documents.

2. The short facts are that by an order dated November 5, 1971 the Government of Maharashtra referred the industrial dispute between the petitioners and the workmen employed under them in relation to the demands specified in the schedule. It is necessary to notice that the first demand was for grades and scales of pay ; the second for reclassification and up-grading ; the third for application of the grades and scales of pay and adjustment thereof ; the fourth for annual increments ; the fifth for dearness allowance ‘ the sixth for officiating allowance ; the seventh for overtime allowance ; the eighth for traveling allowance ‘ the ninth for medical relief; the tenth for leave and the eleventh for gratuity.

3. It would appear that the Union filed the Statement of claim on December 18, 1971. The petitioners filed their written statement on January 18, 1972 and the Union filed a rejoinder on February 15, 1972.

4. Thereafter on February 15, 1972 the Union filed an application for production of documents in which the only statement as to the necessity of the production of the documents and the relevance of the documents was made in the following words:

“….. After considering various submissions and avernments made by the Company in its written statement, it is necessary that certain documents be produced before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which will throw sufficient light on various aspects of the issues involved in this Reference …… "

A list of documents was then set out in the said application. It is appropriate that the entire application should be set out so as to appreciate the rival contentions of the parties;

"In the above Reference the Union has filed its Statement of claims on 18th December 1971, and the Employer Company has filed its Written Statement on 18th January 1972. The Union has also filed its Rejoinder to the Written Statement of the Company on 15th February 1972. After considering various submissions and avernments made by the Company in its Written Statement, it is necessary that certain documents be produced before this Hon'ble Tribunal, which will throw sufficient light on various aspects of the issues involved in this Reference. These documents are, however, in the sole possession of the Employer Company.

It is, therefore, prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to direct the Employer Company to produce the following documents and further be directed to supply copies of the same to the Union simultaneously.

DOCUMENTS

1. Balance sheet and profit and loss account statements of the Company for each of the years 1966 to 1971.

2. Pay Roll of the Bombay Office of the Company including that of officers and workmen staff for the years 1966 to 1971 and various allowances along with quantum thereof paid to the officers of the Company during the years 1966 to 1971.

3. The franchise agreement entered into by the Employer Company with its parent Company in U. S. A. and also similar agreements entered into by the Employer Company with other Film producing Companies in U. S. A.

4. The names of Films distributed by the Employer Company in India during the years 1966 to 1971 giving the rates and the amount of royalty in respect of each such film paid by the Employer Company to its parent Company and/or other companies in U. S. A. according to the respective franchise agreement.

5. Number of bookings and billings made by the Employer Company during each of the years from 1966 to 1971.

6. Sums advanced by the Employer Company to t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis