Documents should only be produced if necessary for adjudicating the controversy and not for a fishing inquiry.

SUNITA GUPTA, J.

1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 3rd September, 2014 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court-XIX, Karkardooma Courts in Case ID No. 02402CO298242012 LIR No. 504/2012 whereby application moved by the respondent seeking production of documents was allowed.

2. The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this petition are that the respondent/workman was in employment of the management since November, 2008 as an A.C. Technician and according to him his services were illegally terminated on 23rd April, 2012. It is further alleged by him that he is a member of the union and was deprived of various legal facilities such as annual yatra bhatta, annual increment, ESI, PF and bonus etc. His services were terminated illegally without payment of his earned wages, without giving any notice or notice pay or retrenchment compensation. It was also alleged that the services of the workman were terminated although juniors to him were still continuing with the management and same work is being taken by the juniors to the workman and by newly appointed employees. Thus, the termination was alleged to be in violation of Section 25F , 25G and 25H of the Industrial Disputes Act.

3. The claim of the workman was resisted by the petitioner/Management on the ground that a theft of copper worth Rs. 1.5 lacs has taken place in their store on 23rd April, 2012 and when the workman was enquired about it, he could not give satisfactory answer and left the job on his own accord.

4. During the pendency of the case, an application was moved by the workman for summoning the following documents:-

(a) Attendance and payment of wage register for the period March, 2011 to April, 2012.

(b) Seniority list from the year 2008-2012.

(c) Payment of bonus register from the year 2008-2012.

5. By placing reliance on Automobile Association of India vs. PO Labour Court-II, 2006 LLR 851 Delhi, vide impugned order dated 3rd September, 2014, the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court allowed the application by holding that the workman can call upon the management to produce documents in order to prove his case, i.e., the documents which can prove relationship between the employee and employer, salary or the length of service which are in possession of the management.

6. Feeling aggrieved, this writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/management on the ground that the limited question for consideration before the Labour Court is whether the workman was retrenched/terminated or he had abandoned the job on his own accord on 23rd April, 2013 and for adjudication of this controversy, the documents as called for by the workman are not at all relevant or significant.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that none of the documents has any relevance for adjudication of the controversy. The workman cannot be permitted to have a roving and fishing inquiry. Reliance was placed on Delhi State Industrial & Infrastructural Development Corporation Ltd. and Another, CM (M) No. 404/2012 and CM No. 6267/2012, B.O.C. India Ltd. vs. Indian Oxygen Employees Union, (2000) 1 LLJ 472 and Sumer Singh Saini vs. Hindustan Machines and Tools Ltd. Pinjore, CR No. 669/2008 decided by the Punjab and Haryana Court.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/workman submitted that all the documents are necessary for adjudication of the controversy between the parties, inasmuch as, it is the case of the workman that his termination from the services is in violation of the mandatory provisions of Section 25F, 25G and 25H of Industrial Disputes Act. In order to prove violation of Section 25F, it will be necessary for the workman to prove that he had worked for 240 days preceding his termination and, therefore, the attendance and payment of wage register for the period March, 2011 to April, 2012 is necessary. He is also alleging violation of Section 25G by alleging that j