wp3262.10.sxw 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 3262 OF 2010 Smt. Sunita P. Khanolkar ....Petitioner. Vs. M/s. Advance Power Display Systems Ltd. & Ors. ....Respondents. Mr. P.M. Mokashi for the Petitioner. Mr. M.M. Verma i/by Mr. Rajesh Gehani for the Respondents. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 26th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 Rule returnable forthwith. Heard finally. 2 The Writ Petition is against the interlocutory order dated 26/03/2010, whereby the Petitioner’s application for production of the documents was rejected. 3 The main Application is under section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short “the Act”). During the trial/ recording the evidence, the original Claimant-Complainant moved this Application to produce certain documents which according to them are necessary for the learned Tribunal to adjudicate the claim, so raised, based upon the existing rights. However, considering the scope and purpose of Section 33-C(2) of wp3262.10.sxw 2 the Act, and as basic burden lies upon the Claimant-Complainant to establish pre-existing rights and at this stage of the proceedings, I see there is no reason, now, to ask for these documents for the first time. 4 The learned Judge, after considering the scope of Section 33-C(2) of the Act as well as the merits of the Application so raised, found that the Applicant-Claimant is nothing but roaming inquiry to collect information only during the recording of evidence, which in my view, needs no interference. The apprehension so raised based upon the judgment so sited, is uncalled for. The learned Labour Court is bound to decide the Application in accordance with law by taking note of the material available on record read with the evidence so produced. 5 Resultantly, the Petition is dismissed. However, all points are kept open. Rule discharged. No costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)