( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5407 OF 2010 M/s. Concept Pharmaceuticals Limited, .. Petitioner A-28/3, MIDC, Chikalthana, Aurangabad, Through General Manager. Versus 1. Shri Anil Chandrashekhar Potdar, .. Respondents R/o. Jaibhavani Nagar, Aurangabad. 2. Shri Baburao Bhalchandra Kajlikar, R/o. N-4, CIDCO, Aurangabad. Mr. T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.L. Shahane, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J. DATED : 16.08.2010 ORAL JUDGMENT :- 1. By this petition, the petitioner seeks to challenge the impugned order rendered by the Industrial Court in revisional jurisdiction whereby Revision (ULP) No. 30 of 2009 came to be allowed and the application filed by the respondents Ex. U-8 in Complaint (ULP) No. 121 of 1996 was ( 2 ) allowed. Resultantly, the petitioner was directed to produce certain documents viz. vouchers etc. which were called by the respondents. 2. The respondents filed Complaint Application bearing Complaint (ULP) Nos. 121 and 122 of 1996. It appears that the evidence of the complainants/respondents was recorded. They filed a pursis dated 6th September, 2005 (U-12), whereby it was stated that it was informed to the Labour Court that they had closed oral evidence. Thereafter, it was turn of the petitioner to adduce evidence. At the fag end of the Trial, the respondents filed application seeking calling of vouchers and other documents from the petitioner. The application was strongly opposed by the petitioner on various grounds including the ground that there exist no such documents with them. They denied that there was any documentary evidence available regarding payments made to the respondents or the employees as alleged. Learned Judge of the Labour Court rejected the application. He held that the documents were called at the stage of framing of the issues or at the time of filing of the complaint applications but that was not done. He further noticed that the application ( 3 ) was moved after about four years of closure of evidence of the respondents and therefore it was a belated attempt of the respondents to seek protection of the documents about which there was no reasonable ground to assume existence thereof. The order rendered by Labour Court on 26.03.2009 was challenged before the Revisional Court, which is set aside vide impugned judgment and order. 3. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 4. At the threshold, let it be noted that exercise of the revisional jurisdiction could be made only when order of the Labour Court was found to be perverse, arbitrary or capricious. The Revisional Court cannot interfere only for the reason that some other view of the matter is also possible. Obviously, the Revisional Court ought to have examined as to whether the order of the Labour Court was totally without foundation or that it was not based on any material and could be regarded as perverse. Learned Judge of the Industrial Court framed points which indicate his mind and would show that he considered the revisional jurisdiction as akin to the appellate jurisdiction. The points raised by ( 4 ) the learned Judge of the Industrial Court are as follows :- “ Point/s Finding/s 1. Whether the impugned order dated 26-3-2009 of the learned Trial Court passed below Exhibit U-8 is legal In the and proper? negative. 2. Whether any interference in the impugned order of the Trial Court In the is warranted? Affirmative. 3. What Order? Revision stands allowed.” 5. The question whether the order of the Labour Court was legal and proper could be considered only in appellate jurisdiction. What was necessary to consider was whether within the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction the order of the Labour Court could be termed as perverse or rendered without any tangible material or otherwise could be regarded as arbitrary. It is nobody’s case that the Labour Court rendered order in question on 26.03.2009 without giving opportunity of hearing to the parties. 6. The Revisional Court did not address the issue as ( 5 ) to why the belated demand of production of document was made by the respondents. The Industrial Court did not consider the fact that already evidence closure pursis was filed by the respondents in 2005. The petitioner denied the very existence of the documents in question and therefore there was no point in calling such documents, at least after four years of filing pursis by the respondents to close their evidence. There appears patent error committed by the Revisional Court while interfering with the discretionary order of the Labour Court. In this view of the matter the impugned order is quite unsustainable in the eye of law. 7. Taking overall view of the matter, the petition is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The order of learned Labour Court is substituted in place of the impugned order. 8. Rule made absolute accordingly. [V.R. KINGAONKAR,J.] snk/2010/AUG10/wp5407.10