Case: Crompton Greaves Limited Vs. Amarjit Kaur Sadhusingh Sarna & Others

ORAL JUDGMENT Dabholkar, J.Advocate Shri A.S.Shelke concedes that Respondent Nos.2 and 3 are formal parties and both the lawyers have consented for final hearing of the Letters Patent Appeal without notice to Respondent Nos.2 and 3.2.The facts relevant for the purpose of present Letters Patent Appeal can be summarised as follows.Appellant is a company, wherein Respondent No.1 was employed since 1980 as Steno-typist. Admittedly, she was duly upgraded/ promoted in due course till 1996. It was her grievance that she was never upgraded/ promoted from 1997 onwards, although she was allowed regular annual increments right upto 2004. Feeling aggrieved that she is superseded, she filed a complaint before Industrial Court, Ahmednagar (ULP No.101/2004) complaining of Unfair Labour Practices on the part of the appellant-company under items 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV to MRTU and PULP Act, 1971 (for brevitys sake, "the said Act").While the matter was pending before the learned Member, Industrial Tribunal, complainant filed an application (paperbook page 69), praying for directions to the company to produce certain documents. The list contains seven items and items 1, 3, 4 and 5 are pertaining to pay-sheets and muster roll of various employees (in all 18, 12 in service and 6 retired). Item No.2 pertains to service details of those employees and item Nos.6 and 7 are pertaining to performance appraisal of complainant and others.Application was resisted by the company and a copy of say is at paperbook pages 72-73. The main contention challenging the prayer for directions to produce the documents, was that the application is vague and it does not specifically make out a case as to how the documents sought to be got produced, are relevant. The notice for production of documents is thus not tenable. Otherwise also, it was contended that the documents are not relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the complaint.Learned Member of the Tribunal disposed of the application vide order delivered on 22.9.2005. It is evident that the application is partly allowed. The operative part reproduced hereinbelow will suffice the purpose to demonstrate the extent to which the application is allowed."The respondent is hereby directed to give necessary inspection of pay sheets of the complainant along with other employees referred above to the complainant or his counsel by giving specific notice informing the date for verification till next date."3.Feeling aggrieved, the company carried the matter before the learned Single Judge of this High Court by way of Writ Petition No.8120 of 2005. Finding that there were no grounds to interfere with the order of the learned Member of the Tribunal, which was in the nature of interim order, learned Single Judge was pleased to dismiss the Writ Petition vide order dated 14.2.2006 and vacate the interim relief granted earlier.4.Heard learned counsel for respective parties. The submissions are in harmony with the contentions in the notice for production and reply to the same. Advocate Shri Shelke placed reliance upon the judgment of Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of 20th Century Fox Corpn. v. F.H. Lala, 1975 LAB.I.C. 517, for following proposition:"Before any Tribunal (including the Industrial Tribunal) can order production and inspection of documents it must be satisfied as to the relevancy of the documents called for. In order to determine the relevancy, there must be material before the Tribunal. In order that there should be material before the Tribunal, the applicant must place it before the Tribunal, and this he can do by setting out in the application the necessary facts, the necessary contentions as to the nature of the documents, the necessity for their production, what kind of reliance he wishes to place thereon and what is the case which he wishes to make out."We have no reason to disagree with the observations and "relevancy" would be the basic requirement for directing production of any document.Upon hearing the submissions of both the sides, we have not been able to avoid temptation of feeling that it should have been the Respondent-complainant, who could have felt aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. On reference to items 5 and 9 (item 10 is not pressed before us), we have gathered that the grievance of the Respondent -complainant is about her supersession. Naturally, in order to demonstrate that she is superseded, she will have to place material and data before the Tribunal, which will indicate that a person in the cadre, in which complainant was serving and one who was junior to her in that cadre, was either upgraded or promoted, by denial of such upgradation/ promotion to her while both of them were in the zone of consideration for such purpose. In addition, she will have to demonstrate that she was more meritorious than the junior colleague who was upgraded/ promoted. She will at least have to demonstrate that she was competent for promotion and yet she was denied the same. Upon considering this hypothesis, we are convinced that the performance appraisal is the crucial document which would contain the material, if any, either supporting or demolishing the contention of the complainant. The pay-sheets, of which inspection is allowed, would only demonstrate as to what salary and under what head of account, the amounts were drawn by each employee. The company cannot deny the details as to when each of the employees was upgraded/promoted.We, therefore, feel that, in fact, the learned Member of the Tribunal has denied an order of production of documents which, we feel, were most relevant and has ordered production of document, which would certainly not throw any light upon the grievance of the complainant.We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by learned Single Judge that the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference.4.Feeling that the production of irrelevant document is ordered (even by denying production of relevant documents), we feel justified in quashing the orders passed by both, learned Single Judge as well as learned Member of the Tribunal. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeal succeeds and the orders of the Single Judge and learned Member of the Tribunal shall stand quashed and set aside.5.Before parting, we may refer to observations by learned Member of the Tribunal. He has observed that there cannot be any dispute that, if some documents are necessary for proving case of the employee and those documents are not in possession of the employee, but are in the custody of the employer, then for bringing those documents on record, directions can be given to Respondents to produce the same before the court. We, therefore, clarify that while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal and although learned Member of the Tribunal, while disposing of interim application of the complainant had rejected the prayer for production of performance appraisals of the complainant and other employees; since we have arrived at a conclusion that these performance appraisals will be the crucial documents for adjudicating upon the complaint in the light of the defence of the company that due to performance appraisal the complainant was denied promotion, it will be open for the complainant to pray the Tribunal to call for production of performance appraisals for its perusal, in the event the company does not suo-motu produce it. We also grant liberty to the complainant to pray for expeditious hearing of the complaint.

Decision:
1[ds]Upon hearing the submissions of both the sides, we have not been able to avoid temptation of feeling that it should have been thewho could have felt aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Member of the Tribunal. On reference to items 5 and 9 (item 10 is not pressed before us), we have gathered that the grievance of the Respondentcomplainant is about her supersession. Naturally, in order to demonstrate that she is superseded, she will have to place material and data before the Tribunal, which will indicate that a person in the cadre, in which complainant was serving and one who was junior to her in that cadre, was either upgraded or promoted, by denial of such upgradation/ promotion to her while both of them were in the zone of consideration for such purpose. In addition, she will have to demonstrate that she was more meritorious than the junior colleague who was upgraded/ promoted. She will at least have to demonstrate that she was competent for promotion and yet she was denied the same. Upon considering this hypothesis, we are convinced that the performance appraisal is the crucial document which would contain the material, if any, either supporting or demolishing the contention of the complainant. Theof which inspection is allowed, would only demonstrate as to what salary and under what head of account, the amounts were drawn by each employee. The company cannot deny the details as to when each of the employees was upgraded/promoted.We, therefore, feel that, in fact, the learned Member of the Tribunal has denied an order of production of documents which, we feel, were most relevant and has ordered production of document, which would certainly not throw any light upon the grievance of the complainant.We are, therefore, unable to agree with the view taken by learned Single Judge that the order of the Tribunal does not call for any interference.4.Feeling that the production of irrelevant document is ordered (even by denying production of relevant documents), we feel justified in quashing the orders passed by both, learned Single Judge as well as learned Member of the Tribunal. Consequently, Letters Patent Appeal succeeds and the orders of the Single Judge and learned Member of the Tribunal shall stand quashed and set aside.5.Before parting, we may refer to observations by learned Member of the Tribunal. He has observed that there cannot be any dispute that, if some documents are necessary for proving case of the employee and those documents are not in possession of the employee, but are in the custody of the employer, then for bringing those documents on record, directions can be given to Respondents to produce the same before the court. We, therefore, clarify that while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal and although learned Member of the Tribunal, while disposing of interim application of the complainant had rejected the prayer for production of performance appraisals of the complainant and other employees; since we have arrived at a conclusion that these performance appraisals will be the crucial documents for adjudicating upon the complaint in the light of the defence of the company that due to performance appraisal the complainant was denied promotion, it will be open for the complainant to pray the Tribunal to call for production of performance appraisals for its perusal, in the event the company does notproduce it. We also grant liberty to the complainant to pray for expeditious hearing of the complaint.