SSM 1 wp.223.11.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION\ WRIT PETITION NO. 223 OF 2011 Krantikari Suraksha Rakshak Sanghatana .... Petitioner Versus M/s. Britannia Industries Ltd. .... Respondent Ms. Jane Cox for the Petitioner. Mr. P.M. Palshikar for the Respondent. CORAM: S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J. DATED: 8 th FEBRUARY, 2011. P.C.: Heard both the sides. 2. Though this Writ Petition is arising out of an interlocutory order and ordinarily the court is not inclined to interfere with such orders under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the Peculiar facts of this case and when the subsequent events disclosed that both sides have produced certain documents, the present Petition is SSM 2 wp.223.11.doc entertained. The first respondent company, though having an order in its favour has voluntarily produced certain documents. In these circumstances, by consent of parties following order is passed:- (i) The impugned order dated 13 th January, 2011 is quashed and set aside. (ii) The application dated 23 rd December, 2010 made by the Petitioner-original second party for production of documents discloses that most of the documents have now been produced. In these circumstances if the said documents or copies thereof either originals or duly certified as True Copies by the authorities, the same shall be marked as Exhibits. (iii) A request is made for production of a copy of the licence and registration under the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act from the year 2002 onwards and at the same time the request is to produce the original Exemption Certificate granted by the State Government to the Contractor. The first respondent is not SSM 3 wp.223.11.doc the contractor. Therefore, if the contractor has forwarded the original Exemption Certificate or true copies duly certified by the authority to the first Respondent the same may be produced by the first respondent and thereupon the trial court to exhibit it on record. (iv) As far as the document at Sr. No. 8 is concerned, the same is original copy of the Attendance Muster of the concerned workers for the month of April, 2004. On instructions Mr. Palshikar appearing for the first respondent states that the original copy of the Attendance Muster of the concerned workers is not with the first respondent as they were reporting to the Security Board. If the Exemption Certificate cannot be produced as directed above, the Petitioner is at liberty to make a request to the trial court to summon the same from the records of the Competent Authority / State Government and if such a request is made, the trial court is directed to hear the parties and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Needless to state that if despite these orders and directions, the SSM 4 wp.223.11.doc documents are not produced, the trial court is at liberty to draw appropriate inferences in accordance with law. This petition is disposed off in the above terms and since the impugned order is set aside, needless to state that even all the observations and findings recorded herein by the trial court do not survive. All contentions on the merits of the matter are kept open. (S. C. DHARMADHIKARI, J).