Civil Revision No. 4074 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 23 , 2009 1. Civil Revision No. 4074 of 2009 (O&M) M/s Liberty Enterprises V. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and others 2. Civil Revision No. 4075 of 2009(O&M) M/s Liberty Enterprises V. Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and others Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr. P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioner in both petitions . **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This order shall dispose of two Civil Revisions bearing Nos. 4074 of 2009 and 4075 of 2009 by a single judgment as they have arisen out of a common order. These petitions have been filed against the order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act for short) declining the application of the petitioner for a direction to respondents No. 2 to 99 to give certain clarifications/producing certain documents before the petitioner files its written statement. In his order the Civil Revision No. 4074 of 2009 (O&M) 2 learned Authority has stated that the petitioner is entitled to raise all pleas in its reply and the same would be considered when the matter is adjudicated. The learned counsel has placed reliance on Order 11 Rule 15 of the CPC to argue that it is the right of the petitioner to demand documents. There is no dispute with the provisions of Order 11 Rule 15 CPC or the extent of its applicability to proceedings under the Act. The said rule is a complete Code with regard to the right of a party to ask for production of documents and the duty cast on the other side to produce the same as well as the consequences which may be visited on a party who has wrongly ommitted to produce documents referred to in the said rule. There is no reason to believe that the authority under the Act would not consider this Rule at the appropriate stage. With regard to the clarifications, suffice it to say that if there are any material omissions in the application of the private respondents they would have to suffer for the same. In these circumstances the order of the authority cannot be faulted and the petitioner cannot be held entitled not to file reply on merit. Consequently this petition is dismissed. No costs. Since the main case has been decided, all the pending Civil Misc. Applications are disposed of. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE July 23 , 2009 sunita