C.R. No. 6990 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 6990 of 2008 Date of Decision: September 16, 2009 Sumer Singh Saini …..Petitioner Vs. Hindustan Machines and Tools Ltd., Pinjore …..Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr.A.P.Bhandari, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Anand Chhibbar, Advocate for the respondent. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Petitioner has approached the High Court in this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against an order dated November 20, 2008 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ambala, whereby the application of the petitioner for production of the record has been dismissed. C.R. No. 6990 of 2008 [2] The brief facts relevant for the adjudication of this revision petition are that the petitioner was dismissed by the respondents on September 17, 2005. Against the dismissal of the petitioner, he had filed a claim statement dated November 7, 2007 (annexure P-1). During the proceedings before the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, the petitioner filed an application dated August 25, 2008 annexure P-2, demanding the details of documents as mentioned in annexures 1 to 10. I have gone through the documents mentioned in annexure 1 to 10. Hundreds of documents are mentioned in the said annexure. It is pertinent to mention that in the application filed by the workman/ petitioner, he has mentioned that for effective cross-examination and decision f the case, the said documents are relevant. When counsel for the petitioner was asked to explain as to how the documents which are sought to be summoned for cross-examination can be permitted without showing their relevance, he made a reference to Order 11 Rule 12 CPC to contend that the principles of CPC are applicable. It is a settled principle of law that even the provision of Order 11 Rule 12 CPC is not intended to enable a party to cause a roving enquiry to a fish out information which may or may not be relevant for disposal of the suit. The rule gives discretion to the Court to refuse the discovery of document when there is no reasonable prospect for its being of any use or to limit the nature and extent of discovery. Discovery may precede particularly when two conditions exists: (i) where the information sought is necessarily within opponents knowledge; (ii) when the Court is satisfied that no unfair attempt to fish out a case is being made out. C.R. No. 6990 of 2008 [3] A perusal of the claim application of the petitioner which was referred for adjudication to Presiding Officer indicates that the facts mentioned therein are not necessarily required to be proved by the documents which are sought to be summoned and put to the witnesses for cross-examination. The Presiding Officer has carefully examined the list of the documents and has rightly dismissed the application with liberty to the petitioner to produce/ summon the documents which are relevant for discharging the onus on issue No.1. It is important to observe here that counsel for the Management has fairly submitted that the Management does not want to conceal any document but is ready to produce all the documents which are deemed appropriate by the Presiding officer. As and when any specific document is directed to be produced by the Court considering the same to be relevant for the adjudication of the claim of the petitioner, the same would be produced but fishing enquiry and vexatious interrogatories/ enquiry should not be permitted to the petitioner. In view of the above circumstances, I find no ground to interfere in the impugned order. Dismissed. However, it is observed that this order will not debar the Presiding officer to summon any document which is deemed necessary for the just decision of the matter as and when the occasion arises. September 16, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE C.R. No. 6990 of 2008 [4]