C.R. No. 1283 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R. No. 1283 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 28.4.2010 ... Jai Singh ................Petitioner vs. M/s Saraswati Sugar Mills .................Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice K.C. Puri Present: Sh. Ravinder Malik Ravi, Advocate for the petitioner Sh. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the respondent ... K.C. Puri, J. (Oral) This is a revision petition against the order dated 21.12.2009 (Annexure P-3), passed by Ms. Neerja Kulwant Kalson, Additional District and Sessions Judge/Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for calling certain documents was dismissed. Jai Singh – workman has filed petition before the Labour Court, which is sub judice. The workman moved an application dated 22.8.2009 in which request was made to issued direction to the management to produce the original indents alongwith original first C.R. No. 1283 of 2010 -2- copy of weighment slips. Notice of that application was given to the management and in the reply, it was mentioned that no such document is in possession of the management. Learned Labour Court dismissed the application vide impugned order dated 21.12.2009, holding that since the management has categorically denied the possession of documents and as such the management cannot be forced to produce those documents. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in letter dated 18.2.2005 (Annexure P-10), the management has admitted the fact that the details regarding farmers' indents have already been given in the charge sheet dated 2/3.2.2005 served upon him. It is further argued that in the said letter it has been mentioned that even then if the workman wants to go through the said indents, that can be seen in the office of Vice President (Cane), between 10.00 AM to 12.00 noon, on any working day. So, it is contended that in the said letter, the existence of the indents, now called for, has been admitted. So, directions be issued to the management to produce those documents after setting aside the impugned order. Sh. Akshay Bhan, Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent and has stated at the Bar that original of these documents are not in possession of the management as per reply by the management, which is Annexed as Annexure P-2. So, in these circumstances, since the management has categorically denied the possession of original documents, the management cannot be forced to produce those documents. So, far as the document Annexure P-10 is concerned, the trial Court shall take C.R. No. 1283 of 2010 -3- into consideration said document, in case the same is produced before the trial Court. So, in view of the above discussion, the revision petition is without any merit and the same stands dismissed. ( K.C. Puri ) 28.4.2010 Judge chugh