vss IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.5818 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5818 OF 2008 WRIT PETITION NO.5818 OF 2008 Mukund Ltd. ... Petitioner V/s. Rahul Harishchandra Shetye ... Respondent Mr.P.K. Rele with for Petitioner Mr.Bennet D;costa for Respondent CORAM: SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J MHATRE, J MHATRE, J. DATED: SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 SEPTEMBER 15, 2008 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No.21 of 2006 directing the petitioner to produce certain documents. This order has been passed in a Reference for reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages to the workman, i.e. the respondent herein. 2. The contention raised by the respondent in his statement of claim is that his services have been illegally terminated by the petitioner in violation of the Model Standing Orders. It is also contended that persons who are junior to him have been retained in service while terminating his services. Several other contentions have been raised by the workman in his statement of claim. 3. In its reply, the petitioner has in the first paragraph set out the days of work put in by the : 2 : respondent herein from February 1996 to 20.9.2001. The respondent has also denied the contention of the workman that he is the seniormost temporary/badli workman. Besides this, the petitioner has denied that it has retained juniors in service while terminating the services of the respondent and has further denied a breach of section 25G of the Industrial Disputes Act as alleged by the respondent-workman. It is on this basis that the Labour Court has directed production of the documents sought by the workman. These documents are: i) Attendance Record of Temporary/Badli workers from the year 1996 to 2003. ii) Badli workers Pool for the employees’ sons for the year 1996 to 2003. 4. The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that the record with respect to the document at serial No.1 above is voluminous and therefore, they would give inspection of the record to the respondent. He has also contended that no specifics are mentioned in the application for production of documents and therefore, it could be difficult to produce those documents. 5. In my view, the order of the Industrial Court cannot be faulted. However, since the record is : 3 : voluminous as contended by the petitioner herein, the petitioner will give inspection of the attendance record of temporary/badli workers from the year 1996 to 2003. Mr.Rele, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, submits that all the records may not be available with the petitioner. It is made clear that the petitioner will produce all the records which are available with it with respect to attendance record of the temporary/badli workers from the years 1996 to 2003. If certain record is not available with the petitioner, the Labour Court will draw its own conclusions as to the effect of not giving inspection of those records to the respondent. The respondent after taking inspection may call upon the petitioner to produce the exact record with respect to the attendance record of the temporary/badli workers from 1996 to 2003. The other document sought is a list of Badli workers in the pool for sons of employees for the years 1996 to 2003. That list shall be furnished to the respondent workman containing the seniorty of the workman concerned. The list shall be produced within two weeks before the Labour Court. 6. Inspection of the attendance record of temporary/badli workers from 1996 to 2003 shall be given within four weeks from today. The record of the respondent workman shall be produced before the Labour Court within two weeks from today. : 4 : 7. Petition is disposed of accordingly.