WP/7680/2010 : 1 : vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.7680 OF 2010 Anirudh Yadav & Ors. ... Petitioners V/s. Pioneer Embroideries Ltd. ... Respondent Ms.Bhavna Shah for Petitioners Mr.Sunil Patil i/b M/s.Sunil & Co. for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: NOVEMBER 23, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the order passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dadra & Nagar Haveli, Silvassa on 17.7.2010. By this order the Labour Court has rejected the application of the workmen seeking permission to produce certain documents. Another application filed by the workmen seeking a direction from the Labour Court to enforce the respondent to produce documents in its custody has also been dismissed. 2. The present writ petition has been filed by three workmen whose grievance is the same as about 280 workmen who have filed applications before the Labour Court u/s 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The impugned order is a common order passed by the Court in all the applications. The learned advocate for the petitioners states that in all probability common evidence will be led in the applications, since the WP/7680/2010 : 2 : applications seeking production of documents and permission to produce documents are common applications, filed in all the applications. 3. Considering the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties before me, in my opinion, the Labour Court has erred in dismissing both exhibits 14 and 15 on the ground that the applications had been filed belatedly. The Labour Court has lost sight of the fact that the application could not be prosecuted because a writ petition had been filed in this Court by the employer which was pending adjudication on the maintainability of the applications u/s 33-C(2). The writ petition was dismissed in 2008. Thereafter a Letters Patent Appeal was filed which was also dismissed on 11.12.2008. Thereafter, the petitioners filed an application on 3.4.2010 for permission to produce documents and which is at exhibit 14 and another application at exhibit 15 for production of the attendance register, wage register, overtime register and production reports of the employees from 1994 to 31.12.2003. It is true that there has been a delay in filing these applications. But that delay is not of six years as mentioned in the impugned order. After this Court passed the order on 11.12.2008, there was no reason for the petitioners not to have filed the application within a reasonable time. They waited for over a year to file exhibits 14 and 15. 4. However, in my opinion, the Labour Court has passed a perverse order by not allowing the production of documents which the workmen wish to rely on. If indeed there was a delay of six years, the Court could have imposed costs on the workers. By denying them their right to produce documents, the Court has passed an unjust order. Therefore, in my view, exhibit 14 must be allowed, however, subject to payment of costs of Rs.2,000/- to the respondent. Costs shall be paid as condition WP/7680/2010 : 3 : precedent within four weeks from today. 5. As regards exhibit 15, the Labour Court has accepted the statement made by the respondent employer that it does not have the following documents: attendance register, wage register, overtime register and production reports of the concerned employees for the period from 1994 upto 31.12.2003. Since that statement of the employer has been accepted by the Court, it would be open to the Court to consider the effect of the non-production of these documents while deciding the applications filed under section 33-C(2). 6. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly.