The Tribunal has the discretion to call upon the parties to discover and produce documents mentioned in its order and it is not for the Court to go into the question as to whether these discretions have been properly exercised.

Bishan Narain, J.

1. 34 Cinemas of Delhi through K. S. Ahluwalia, Labour Officer, Motion Pictures Association, Delhi, have filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the validity of reference of alleged disputes between the Cinemas and their workmen and also challenging the validity of certain interlocutory orders made by the Additional Industrial Tribunal in the course of proceedings taken to adjudicate upon these alleged disputes. The petitioners have impleaded all the workmen of the 34 Cinemas through Cine Employees Association and also the Additional Industrial Tribunal as respondents.

2. The facts leading to this petition, are these : By Notification dated 8/11-10-1956 the Delhi State Government referred certain specified disputes for adjudication to the Additional Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(c) read with Section 12(5) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 .

The validity of this reference is challenged. Shri Rameshwar Dayal, the Additional Industrial Tribunal started proceedings and on 17-1-1957, the Cine Employees Association filed a preliminary statement of claim. Ahluwalia, Labour Officer, styling himself as Labour Officer, Motion Pictures Association filed a reply as representing 29 Cinemas on 15-2-1957 and therein raised various preliminary objections to the workers demands and then he filed a reply on merits on 1-3-1957, as representing 30 Cinemas. The Tribunal had fixed 1-3-1957 as next date of hearing.

The workmen filed a rejoinder to the preliminary objections filed by the Cinemas and also filed an application praying that the Cinemas should be directed to produce certain documents which were in their possession to enable the Tribunal to adjudicate upon the disputes that have been referred to it. Ahluwalia objected to the production of these documents and also objected to appearance of Shri Harish Chander, Advocate, before the Tribunal.

By order dated 1-3-1957, the Tribunal overruled the objections relating to the appearance of Shri Harish Chander and adjourned the case for arguments regarding the production of documents. After nearing the arguments, the Tribunal ordered the Cinema on 7-3-1957 to furnish the information asked for in items 1 to 3. Thereupon, the present petition was filed.

3. The petitioner enumerates various grounds on which the validity of the reference and or the interlocutory orders is challenged but the learned counsel did not refer to all of them in the course of arguments. The learned counsel argued only some of these grounds and I shall deal only with these grounds which were relied upon by the learned counsel in arguments.

4. The validity of reference is challenged on the ground,

(i) that the alleged disputes relating to all the 34 Cinemas could not be referred by one Notification;

(ii) and that Delite Cinema has no dispute with its workmen in view of the compromise between the management and its workmen and therefore, the entire reference is invalid.

5. The second ground need not detain us as the learned counsel specifically save it up stating that it is always open to the Tribunal to accept the terms of the alleged compromise and incorporate them in the award and that the reference cannot be said to be invalid on this ground, alone.

6. The learned counsel for the respondents has urged that the validity of reference cannot be determined in these proceedings in the absence of the Delhi State which has not been impleaded in the Writ Petition. There is substance in this objection. Ferris in his well known book on "the law of extra-ordinary legal remedies" states the legal position in these words :

"Those parries whose action is to he reviewed and who are interested therein and affected thereby and in whose possession the record of such action remains, are not only proper but necessary parties. It is to such parties that the notice to show cause against the issuance of the Writ must be given and they are the only parties who may make return or w