IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE THIRD DAY OF JUNE TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 499 of 2009 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 03/08/2007 in WP NO : 22995 OF 2006 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 The Deputy General Manager, Personal Department, State Bank of Hyderabad Head Office, Gunfoundry, Hyderabad 500 177. 2 The Branch Manager, State Bank of Hyderabad, Bellavista Branch, Somajiguda, Hyderabad. 3 The Branch Manager State Bank of Hyderabad Bellavista Branch Somajiguda, Hyderabad. ..... APPELLANT(S) AND 1 K. Santhosh Kumar S/o Satyanarayana r/o Hyderabad. 2 P. Srinivas S/o P. Ramulu R/o H. No. 2-2-1103/9/7/A Sanjeevaiahnagar, Golipura, Hyderabad 3 Bhuraram S/o Babaram' R/o Hyderabad. 4 The Hon'ble Central Government Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Hyderabad Rep. by Presiding Officer. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant: SRI CH.SIVA REDDY Counsel for the Respondents: SRI V.VISWANATHAM The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :499 of 2009 JUDGMENT: (per Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) The present writ appeal has been filed against the order passed by the learned single Judge in WP No.22995 of 2006, dated 3.8.2007. Respondents 1 to 3 herein are the writ petitioners. They filed the above writ petition challenging the order of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court in I.As No.9, 10 and 13 of 2006 in LICD Nos.67, 68 and 69 of 2005, dated 11.8.2006. The writ petitioners filed the above claim petitions before the Labour Court under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, seeking to summon the documents described in the schedule for the purpose of proving that they are working in the organization for the last so many years and also that they had worked for more than 240 days preceding the date of their termination. The Labour Court having observed that the documents sought by the petitioners are not relevant to the just decision of the case and that the petitioners are seeking the relief for summoning the documents on the ground that MW1 has referred some documents in his cross examination and that the petitioners have to prove their case and they cannot rely on the non-available documents, which are alleged to have been referred by the Management witness, and that the petitioners are always entitled to obtain certified copies, from the respondent- bank, which are public documents by duly applying before the respondent-bank, dismissed the applications. Hence, the above writ petition has been filed. The learned single Judge having observed that the question as to whether the documents described are relevant and whether they are useful for the purpose of considering the case is altogether a different matter, but in a case of this nature, the Labour Court cannot say that the workman has to prove his own case by producing such documents, which are not in the custody of the workman in the normal course of business, allowed the writ petition setting aside the order of the Labour Court. Having aggrieved by the same, respondents 2 and 3 in the writ petition filed the present appeal. Heard the learned Counsel and perused the material available on record. On a perusal of the material available on record, it is apparent that for the purpose of proving their case, the workmen have filed the above I.As before the Labour Court to summon some documents. In view of the nature of the case, the rejection of their claim through the above applications, may amount to depriving their opportunity to prove their case. In this view of the matter and in view of the nature of the litigation, we feel that the order of the learned single Judge does not suffer from any illegality or irregularity warranting interference of this Court. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. However, we make it clear that the Labour Court shall dispose of the LICD Nos.67, 68 and 69 of 2005, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, in accordance with law. _______________________ Justice T.Meena Kumari _____________________ Justice Sanjay Kumar Dated: 3rd June, 2009 Nn/gurc THE HON'BLE SMT JUSTICE T.MEENA KUMARI & THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT APPEAL NO :499 of 2009 (Judgment of the Division Bench delivered by the Hon’ble Smt Justice T. Meena Kumari) 3rd June, 2009