Ghcl Ltd. vs Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha
2021 Latest Caselaw 15116 Guj

    C/SCA/6081/2020                                       ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021



          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

            R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6081 of 2020
                                With
          CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR DIRECTION) NO. 1 of 2021
           In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6081 of 2020
================================================================
                                  GHCL LTD.
                                    Versus
                            GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA
================================================================
Appearance:
MR.SHALIN MEHTA, SENIOR ADVOCATE for GUPTA LAW
ASSOCIATES(9818) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
PARITOSH R GUPTA(7583) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1,2
HARSH K RAVAL(9068) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
MR AMRESH N PATEL(2277) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED BY DS(5) for the Respondent(s) No. 2,3
================================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
                  Date : 27/09/2021
                   ORAL ORDER

[1] With consent of parties, the main matter is taken up for hearing today.

[2] By the present writ petition, the petitioner has sought quashing and setting aside the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot (the Tribunal), in Reference (I.T.) No.8 of 2014, whereby the petitioner is asked to produce certain documents in order to decide the industrial dispute. It is the case of the petitioner-Company, that the award passed by the Tribunal for production of the documents is erroneous and illegal.

[3] Learned Senior Advocate Mr.Shalin Mehta appearing for the petitioner-Company has submitted that the documents, which are ordered to be

C/SCA/6081/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021

produced by the Tribunal are absolutely irrelevant for deciding the controversy since the members/workmen of the respondent No.1-Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha ('the Union' for short) are employed by the contractors and the burden lies on them to produce the documents. He has submitted that the Tribunal should have first applied its mind to determine the relevancy of documents and only after concluding that the documents are necessary to decide the dispute or the terms of reference should have ordered the production of documents. He has submitted that the petitioner cannot be compelled to produce the documents, which are not relevant or have not bearing for adjudication and without examining the relevancy of such documents, the Tribunal should not have passed the order directing them to produce it. In support of his submissions, he has placed reliance on the decisions of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay reported in the cases of U.B.S. Publishers and Distributors, Ltd. vs. Industrial Workers Union and another 1997 (3) L.L.N. 168 and 20th Century Fox Corporation (India) (Private) Ltd. vs. F.H.Lala and others, dated 03.03.1973 passed in Special Civil Application No. 2408 of 1972. It is also submitted that it is the policy of the petitioner-Company not to maintain the record, hence no documents can be produced by it. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order is required to be set aside.

C/SCA/6081/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021

[4] In response to the aforesaid submissions, learned advocate Mr.Amresh Patel appearing for the workmen has submitted that the present writ petition is only filed in order to see that the proceedings before the Tribunal are frustrated. He has submitted that the Tribunal has examined the issue raised before it along with the terms of reference, and after hearing both the sides extensively has thought it fit to call for the documents, as the same would be needed for adjudication. He has submitted that the Tribunal, after examining the issue has held that such documents are relevant for deciding the terms of reference and hence, the Tribuna has precisely passed the award. It is submitted that the grievance of the petitioner, with regard to not having the documents is taken care by the Tribunal by holding that in case the company is not in possession of the documents, it is open for the concerned officer to file an affidavit in this regard.

[4.1] Learned advocate Mr.Patel has further submitted that the part of the order is already complied with as the contractors have already produced the documents, however the company is resisting in producing the same for the reason that do not have them. It is submitted that the petitioner-Company is also supposed to preserve the documents, which are necessary under the statutory

C/SCA/6081/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021

provisions under the Labour Laws and the relevancy of the documents can be examined always examined by leading evidence by both the sides. He has submitted that during the proceedings, the Tribunal has the power to call for any document, which is necessary for the proceedings, and the parties to the reference can always lead evidence for proving the document. Thus, he has submitted that the impugned order does not require any interference.

[5] Heard the learned advocates appearing for both the parties.

[6] The petitioner has challenged the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot at Exh.12A and Exh.73. On a bare perusal of the order dated 10.10.2019 passed by the Tribunal, reveals that the said exhibits are partly allowed and the petitioner-Company and the contractors are directed to produce the relevant documents till 05.11.2019, except the Income Tax Return in two copies and liberty is further reserved by clarifying that in case they do not have the documents, the responsible officer of the company or the contractor can state such fact on affidavit. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal has recorded the statement of demand, as mentioned in the reference as per the order dated 26.03.2014 passed by the Labour Commissioner, Gandhinagar, and the appendix attached to the same. The Tribunal has

C/SCA/6081/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021

recorded the item nos.1 to 5 of the statement of claims,which are as below (translated from Gujarati at Page No.21 of the petition):

"(1) 719 or more contractor workers who have been working regularly in the company for the last 20 years similar to the permanent workers of the company shall be given benefits for which they are eligible after considering them as the permanent workers of the company.

(2) Total 64 workmen have not been assigned any work by contractors of the company since 01/07/13. Whether full salary, allowances or other benefits shall be paid to these retrenched workmen by the contractors of the company until they are reinstated.

(3) Whether salary equal to the permanent workmen of the company shall be given to these 64 retrenched workmen of the contractors from 01/01/13 as an interim relief until the demand no - 1 is not resolved and whether these 64 retrenched workmen of contractors shall be paid increment of salary which is given to the permanent workmen of the company along with all the incidental benefits.

(4) and

(5) Whether 75% of the total salary admissible to the 64 contractor workmen shall be paid to them along with the arrears from the date of their retrenchment until these 64 workmen are not reinstated to their duties as per the demand no -

2."

[7] The aforementioned demands of the workmen suggest that they are working since last 20 years regularly in the petitioner-Company and are seeking benefits, which are paid to the permanent workers. There is dispute raised with regard to 64 workmen who are not been engaged since 01.07.2013 and they are also not paid payment of wages and ancillary benefits. After examining the terms of reference,

C/SCA/6081/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021

the Tribunal has allowed the application at Exh.12A.

[8] This Court has also perused the Exh.12A filed on behalf of the workmen, an the same reveals that they have asked for (1) certain documents from the years 1985 to 2014 showing the payment of wages paid to the workmen and other ancillary benefits and; (2) the wages paid by the contractor from the years 1985 to 2014 and; (3) the details after contract system was adopted by the petitioner- Company and the work undertaken by the petitioner- Company from the workers; (4) the details of wages paid to such workmen from the years 1985 to 2014; (5) the details of Provident Fund; (6) the written order if any passed terminating 64 workmen and finally details if such 64 workmen are engaged by the petitioner-Company after they are terminated.

[9] In the application at Exh.73, the Tribunal has directed to produce the documents, which mention about providing the details with regard to P.P.F. from the years 1985 to 2014. (C) the contracts, which are given from the contractor from the years 1985 to 2019 and the documents in relation to the same. It is the case of the petitioner-Company that after year 1985, they are not supposed to maintain the record as they do not have it. It is stated that they do not have details with regard to termination of 64 workmen and hence, they cannot

C/SCA/6081/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021

produce the same. It is further stated that the entire reference is shame and bogus. At this stage, it would be pertinent to note that the petitioner- Company has not challenged the reference referred by the appropriate authority on the industrial dispute raised by the workmen. As noted hereinabove, most of the documents, which are sought by the workmen are required to be maintained by the petitioner-Company under the statute. The Tribunal, after analyzing the terms of reference, as stated hereinabove, has thought it fit to call for record so that the same can be examined to decide the industrial dispute.

[10] In the considered opinion of this court, no prejudice is likely to cause to the petitioner- Company if the documents are produced, as the same are necessary for adjudication. Even otherwise it is always open for the petitioner-Company to lead evidence with regard to the relevancy of such documents. The judgment, on which reliance is placed by the petitioner-Company cannot come to rescue as it is specifically observed that the power of the Labour Court or Industrial Tribunal to enforce the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, compelling the production of documents and material objects and issuing commission for examination of witnesses, permitting inspection of documents, calling for information cannot be doubted but exercise of such power has to be

C/SCA/6081/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021

keeping in mind the dispute involved. It is also observed that while exercising such power, if the Industrial Court or the Labour Court orders production of documents by a party, which are not at all relevance for deciding the controversy between the parties or have no bearing or relevance or may not be of any worth for adjudication, such order of production of unnecessary and irrelevant documents cannot be sustained and it can be said that by passing such order the Labour Court or Industrial Court has acted illegally or with material irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in directing production of such documents.

[11] Thus, as noted hereinabove, the documents which are ordered to be produced by the Industrial Tribunal, cannot be said to be absolutely irrelevant or unnecessary documents in deciding the industrial dispute or the terms of reference. It is the specific case of the workmen that they are engaged by the petitioner-Company through contractor since last 20 years and they are seeking wages and 64 workmen have not been engaged from 01.07.2013. The petitioner-Company can always provide details to Industrial Tribunal by producing relevant documents showing details of 64 workmen or other employees. The documents, as ordered by the Industrial Tribunal do not fall under the category of irrelevant or unnecessary documents. It cannot

C/SCA/6081/2020 ORDER DATED: 27/09/2021

be inferred that the Industrial Tribunal has absolutely misused its power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The application is partly allowed by by the Tribunal reserving liberty in favour of the petitioner-Company to file an affidavit in case they are not in possession of such documents.

[12] For the foregoing reasons, the writ petition fails. The Labour Court is directed to proceed further with the reference. The civil application, as a squeal is disposed of.

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) NABILA A. VHORA