Wp10459.09 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 10459 OF 2009 Siemens Ltd., Nashik & Ors. ....Petitioners. Vs. Siemens Workers’ Union, Nashik & Anr. ....Respondents. Mr. K.P. Rele, Sr. Counsel with i/by Mr. P.N. Araokar and Mr. R.D. Oak, for the Petitioners. Mr. Benet D’costa for the Respondents. CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA, J. DATE : 7th April, 2010 P.C.: 1 The Petitioners have challenged two orders whereby, the Hon'ble Industrial Court Nashik, in pending complaint directed the Petitioners- Employer to produce documents which are listed in Application dated 02/04/2009 filed by the Respondent at Exhibit U-26. 2 The learned senior counsel appearing for the Petitioner has strongly relied on 1974 (2), L.L.J. 156, The 20 th Century-Fox Corp. (India) (P) Ltd. Vs. F.H. Lala and Ors. and thereby, contended that while passing the order, the Court failed to give sufficient reason with regard to the relevancy of the documents which are necessary for the purpose of adjudication and there is no supporting averments/ materials to show as to why those documents are necessary. The litigants cannot not be permitted to embark Wp10459.09 2 on a fishing or roving inquiry, on the basis of which they can set out their case. The proposition of law, so referred need no further discussions as we have to consider the facts and circumstances of each case. 3 In the present case, admittedly, the complaint is pending since 2007. Now, at the stage of evidence, the Respondent-Union, to support their case as the Complaint is under Item 1 (c), Item 4 (e) of Schedule II and Item 5, 9 and 10 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971 (for short, MRTU and PULP Act, 1971), moved this application, as admittedly those documents, as listed, are exclusively in possession of the Petitioner-Employer. The relevancy of those documents are mentioned in the applications filed on record. The learned Industrial Court, Nashik, also after hearing both the parties and taking note of written submissions and material available on record, by giving sufficient reason granted the said application. Paragraph 8 at Page 71 of the order dated 22/10/2009, below Exhibit 24 reflects the same. The order below Exhibit 26 of the same date, further reflects in paragraph No. 5, the reasons and justification for the same. 4 After taking note of the reasoning so given and after considering the rival contentions based upon the Judgment so referred, I see that the application so granted cannot be stated to be for a fishing or roving inquiry. The Application so filed by the Respondent-Union, in the present facts and Wp10459.09 3 circumstances of the case, and as recorded, those documents are necessary and material to support their case and as those documents, in my view, are also necessary to adjudicate the issue so raised, I am not inclined to accept the case that the production of those documents is not necessary. The learned Tribunal, in the present facts and circumstances, has rightly exercised his discretion which cannot be stated to be perverse or bad in law. Even otherwise, the interlocutory impugned orders; the view so expressed to give full opportunity to both the parties and its application to produced the documents, in my view, need no interference. 5 However, considering the submission so raised by the learned Senior counsel appearing for the Petitioners, I am inclined to modify the order that the documents at Serial Nos. 2(i), (ii), (iii), 3, 7 of the list at page 43 and 44 of the Petition, are voluminous therefore, instead of production, as agreed by the learned counsel appearing for the Respondent and to avoid to make the record bulky, they will take inspection of these documents and prepare the report accordingly. Therefore, those documents need not be produced on record, the rest of the documents as directed be produced on record. 6 It is made clear that the Respondent-Union is permitted to inspect all the documents and if they so desired / instructed accordingly, they may ask for production of remaining documents. If the inspection itself, served the Wp10459.09 4 purpose, then there is no reason to produce all these documents on record. Ultimately, the whole purpose to give full opportunity to both the parties, and; as it is necessary for proper adjudication of the issue so raised by the parties. 7 The Respondent-Union to take inspection within 3 weeks. After the inspection, if necessary, they will ask for documents as ordered and the Petitioner to produce and provide the same within 4 weeks thereafter. 8 In view of above, the Petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.)