SCA/22456/2005 1/7 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 22456 of 2005 For Approval and Signature: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT ========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ========================================================= OIL & NATURAL GAS CORPORATION LIMITED - Petitioner(s) Versus O.N.G.C. EMPLOYEES MAZDOOR SABHA & 1 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance : MR AJAY R MEHTA for Petitioner(s) : 1, MR MUKUL SINHA for Respondent(s) : 1, MR KRISHNA G PILLAI for Respondent(s) : 1, RULE SERVED for Respondent(s) : 2, ========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.R.BRAHMBHATT Date : 20/11/2008 ORAL JUDGMENT The petitioner-ONGC has assailed the order dated 14/08/2005 at Exh.42 ordering production of certain documents mentioned thereunder, on the ground that the said order is amounting to permitting fishing inquiry and not in consonance with the law SCA/22456/2005 2/7 JUDGMENT and therefore deserves to be quashed and set aside. 2. The respondent herein above raised demand for regularization which came to be referred to the competent Court for adjudication on 21/12/2004. The reference was made as under. “Whether the demand of ONGC Employee Mazdoor Sabha, Baroda, to give regular employment to term based appointees is proper and justified. If so, what relief the workmen are entitled for and what directions are necessary in the matter.” 3. The respondent herein above filed their claims statement on 28/12/2004 in above referred Reference No.1476 of 2004. The petitioner – ONGC also filed their written statement denying the claim. During the pendency of the aforesaid reference, the respondent on 03/08/2005 filed an application Exh.43 seeking production of various documents, said application is placed on record at Annexure – D. The Labour Court after hearing both the sides, passed order calling upon the petitioner to produce documents mentioned which is impugned in this petition. 4. Shri Mehta, learned Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the petition deserves to be allowed especially when the order impugned is calling upon the ONGC to produce certain documents which are incapable of produce certain documents which are not relevant at all for the controversy in question. In addition to the aforesaid submission he SCA/22456/2005 3/7 JUDGMENT further submitted that the reference has reached at a defence stage where even the closing Pursis has been furnished by respective parties and therefore as of today, the production would become irrelevant. He further submitted that during the submission, the challenge to production of documents boiled down to only document mentioned at Sr.No.3, 4 and 11 at Annexure – D. Therefore, now this petition is confined to challenge to produce the documents which are Sr.No.3, 4 and 11 at Annexure – D. For the sake convenience, they can be set out as under. “3. Copy of approval / authority issued by the Headquarters of the Corporation authorizing Regional Office to initiate recruitment action for filling up the posts on term basis and the number of posts in each category sanctioned for such recruitment and the details of the project for which posts were sanctioned. 4. Man power position showing sanctioned, filed in and vacant posts, in respect of Class III and IV staff in the western Region and Project wise as received from the project during the years 1998-99 to 20002-2003. 11. Copy of proposal sent by the Regional office to Head Quarters regarding regularization / extension of the terms based employees in August, 2003 along with the details of studies conducted regarding manpower requirement for the Assets in Western Region. (As stated before the RLC copy of which is placed along with the SCA/22456/2005 4/7 JUDGMENT claim).” 5. Shri Mehta, further submitted that the production of such a nature is not maintainable, in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the case of M/s. Kinariwala R.J.K. Industries Vs. Mighty Labour Association, reported in GLR Vol.34(1) 1993 Page 306. 6. Shri Mehta further contended that petition is confined to the aforesaid documents viz., at Sr. No.3, 4 and 11, not relevant and would actually amount to conducting fishing inquiry as to get some more support or rather borrow support to fortify the demand of the party to the litigation. He further submitted that the respondents were term based employee and looking to the terms of reference, the demand of production of these documents is absolutely not justified and therefore the petition deserves to be allowed. 7. Shri Sinha, learned Counsel for the respondent on the other hand submitted that the terms of reference cannot be said to be confined to the year 1999 only. On the contrary, absence of any year in the appointment would itself go to the terms of reference, would have to be read as it is and in light there of this Court has to examine the order of the Industrial Tribunal for production of only those three documents. The challenge of the regularization of the workman is for and in days of Right to SCA/22456/2005 5/7 JUDGMENT Information, such a production ought not to have been objected to by the petitioner. Shri Sinha, further submitted that plea of closing Pursis would also be of no avail, as while submitting the Pursis a care is taken to mention that the pendency of the petition and the outcome thereof would govern the closing pursis. He further submitted that the question on regularization is being agitated. The document in question cannot be said to be either irrelevant and / or merely fishing inquiry. He, therefore, submitted that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. After hearing both the Counsels and perusing the impugned order and the material placed on record viz., written statement and claims statement, this Court is of the view that the following documents as stated herein below ordered to be produced or as the demand of the respondent, terms of reference and statement of claim and the written statement would warrant such production for appropriate adjudication of issue before the Court. 8. This Court need not dwell upon the rival contention with regard to other documents and contentions in respect thereof, as both the Counsels have candidly confined their submission with regard to documents viz., at Sr. No.3, 4 and 11 (Annexure – D). The petitioner shall produce a copy of approval / authority issued by the Headquarters of the Corporation authorizing Regional Office to initiate recruitment action for filling up the posts SCA/22456/2005 6/7 JUDGMENT on term basis; the sanctioned strength of Class- III and IV employee in the Wester Region from 1998-99 to 2002-2003 and the number of vacancy filled in and not filled in, if any; and proposal sent by the Regional office to Head Quarters regarding regularization / extension of the terms based employees in August, 2003. 9. Shir Mehta, submits with regard to production of documents ordered which is at Sr. No.3 in the application at Page No.63 that whatever is possible has already been produced and therefore the direction which is not capable of being complied with would be of no consequence. On the other hand, Shri Sinha submitted that a xerox copy has been insisted upon of produced document does not reflect the correction version. Be that as it may, it goes without saying that the contention with regard to necessity of the document produced is always open to be continued of the respondent – workman. 10. This Court is of the considered view that the production of aforesaid three documents / material would be absolutely relevant and germane for deciding the demand, as could be seen from the term of reference and therefore in view of this as the order of the Labour Court is modified, the petition deserves to be allowed and is partly allowed. It goes without saying that the order of the Industrial Tribunal is modified. Rule made absolute to the aforesaid extent only. SCA/22456/2005 7/7 JUDGMENT (S.R.BRAHMBHATT, J.) sompura