Judgment :- 1. This is a petition under Art.226 of the Constitution and the prayer is to call for the records of Industrial Dispute No. 58 of 1956 on the file of the Industrial Tribunal, Ernakulam for the purpose of quashing by a writ of certiorari or other appropriate writ, direction or order, two orders Exts. E and F passed by the 2nd respondent, the Industrial Tribunal. The petitioners are the Kannan Devan Hills Produce Company Limited, Munnar, the Anglo American Direct Tea Trading Company Limited, Munnar and the Amalgamated Tea Estates Company Limited, Munnar. The staff of these companies represented by the Regional Secretary, Estate Staff's Union of South India, High Range Branch, Munnar is the 1st respondent. 2. The three companies which have jointly filed this petition are subsidiaries of James Finlay and Company Limited, having their registered office in Glasgow. The managing agents of the companies in India are James Finlay and Company limited, Calcutta. The question referred to the Tribunal for adjudication was that of bonus for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53. There were two prior agreements between the petitioners and the 1st respondent made on 22nd March 1954 and 29th December 1954 whereunder the staff was entitled to annual bonus of 4% of the profits. The disputes as to whether the computation of bonus for the years mentioned above was correct was referred by the State Government to the Industrial Tribunal. The issue referred for adjudication was: "Whether the assessments of the 4% of the profits of the South India Estates belonging to the K. D. H P. Co. Ltd., the A A. D. T. T. Co. Ltd., and the A. T. E. Co. Ltd., Munnar for the years 1951-52 and 1957-53 as constituting the bonus for the years 1951-52 and 1952-53 as mentioned in the conciliation agreement dated the 22nd March 1954 is correct. If not what should be the correct assessment and to what reliefs, if any, the staffs are entitled." 3. During the pendency of the enquiry by the Tribunal the 1st respondent made a written submission Ext. B dated 18th June 1956 to call upon the petitioners to produce their balance sheets, profit and loss accounts as well as details of salaries of the whole staff, managerial or subordinate, for the two years in question. During the pendency of the enquiry by the Tribunal the 1st respondent made a written submission Ext. B dated 18th June 1956 to call upon the petitioners to produce their balance sheets, profit and loss accounts as well as details of salaries of the whole staff, managerial or subordinate, for the two years in question. The petitioners filed a counter, offering to produce certain of the documents called for but objecting to the production of the manufacturing and trading accounts. A further submission Ext. C was filed by the 1st respondent on 21st July, 1956 to which a counter, Ext D was filed by the Management on 8th August 1956. The 2nd respondent passed an order on 8th August 1956 that the question of production of documents would be considered "after the evidence of the Union." Two witnesses were examined on behalf of the 1st respondent and then the application for production of documents was taken up for consideration. After hearing both sides, the 2nd respondent passed an order Ext. E on 21st January 1957, directing the petitioners to produce all their account books from Glasgow at the cost of the Union. Two further submissions were made by the 1st respondent on 30th March, 1957 and 12th April 1957 purporting to specify the books required. Pursuant to the Order Ext. E, the 2nd respondent issued a notice Ext. F dated 4th May 1957 informing the petitioners that a sum of Rs. 1320 had been deposited by the 1st respondent towards cost of production of the documents called for. The petitioners contend before this court that the order Ext. E and the notice Ext. F are liable to be quashed. The grounds relied on are that the 2nd respondent exceeded his jurisdiction in passing these orders, that established principles of law have been violated in directing production of these books, that the 2nd respondent failed to note that no grounds justifying the production of the documents or the 1st respondent's, right to inspect the same had been made out and that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure governing such matters were not followed by the 2nd respondent. The respondents have not cared to file any counter to the original petition and at" the time of hearing, the 2nd respondent alone was present. 4. The respondents have not cared to file any counter to the original petition and at" the time of hearing, the 2nd respondent alone was present. 4. The first point raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure were over-looked by the 2nd respondent in passing the order Ext. E. The powers of the Industrial Tribunal to order production of documents are contained in Clause.3 of S.11 of the Industrial Disputes Act which reads as follows: "Every Board, Court or Tribunal shall have the same powers as are vested in a Civil Court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, (V of 1908), when trying a suit in respect of the following matters, namely: (a) enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) compelling the production of documents and material objects; (c) issuing commissions for the examination of witnesses; (d)in respect of such other matters as may be prescribed." The relevant provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are S.30 and R.18 of order XI which are extracted below: S. 30 "Subject to such conditions and limitations as may be prescribed, the court may, at any time, either of its own motion or on the application of any party: (a) make such orders as may be necessary or reasonable in all matters relating to the delivery and answering of interrogatories, the admission of documents and facts, and the discovery, inspection, production, impounding and return of documents or other material objects producible as evidence; (b) issue summonses to persons whose attendance is required either to give evidence or to produce documents or such other objects as aforesaid: (c) order any fact to be proved by affidavit". Rule 18. (R. S. C., O.31, R.18, S.133,134). (1) where the party served with notice under R.15 omits to give such notice of a time for inspection, or objects to give inspection or offers inspection elsewhere than at the office of his pleader, the court may, on the application of the party desiring it, make an order for inception in such place and in such manner as it may think fit; provided that the order shall not be made when and so far as the court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. (2) Any application to inspect documents, except, such as are referred to in the pleadings, particulars or affidavits of the party against whom the application is made or disclosed in his affidavits of documents, shall be founded upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection is sought, that the party applying is entitled to inspect them, and that they are in the possession or power of the other party. The Court shall not make such order for inspection of such documents when and so far as the Court shall be of opinion that it is not necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs." 5. Under R.18 any application to inspect documents except those referred to in pleadings etc. should be founded upon an affidavit showing of what documents inspection is sought, that the party applying is entitled to inspect the same and that the documents are in the possession of the opposite party. The 1st respondent has not filed any affidavit in support of the application so that there is no foundation for the order. The powers of the Industrial Tribunal are not higher than those of the Civil Court and in the absence of such an affidavit, the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to pass an order for production or inspection of the documents called for. The powers of the Industrial Tribunal to order inspection of documents came up for consideration in Burn and Company vs. Jitendra Nath Maitra and others A.I.R. 1956 - Calcutta - 592), wherein it was held. Until an affidavit of documents has been directed to be filed, the court would have no jurisdiction to order inspection. This is not a procedure which can be omitted. I am informed that the Tribunal do not order the filing of an affidavit of documents before ordering inspection This is a practice contrary to law and must not be continued. It is not merely a shadow but a matter of substance that a party should be called upon and should be enabled to state on oath as to what documents are relevant and are in his possession or power, before being called upon to give inspection thereof. The Industrial Tribunals are creatures of law, and therefore they are bound to follow the procedure laid down by law. They cannot evolve their own procedure in the case of discovery and inspection." 6. The Industrial Tribunals are creatures of law, and therefore they are bound to follow the procedure laid down by law. They cannot evolve their own procedure in the case of discovery and inspection." 6. In Shambu Natha and Sons Ltd. v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, Delhi and another (1957 II Labour Law Journal 287) it was held by the High Court of Punjab that the Industrial Tribunal must comply with the provision of Order XI, R.18, Civil Procedure Code before ordering production and inspection of documents and that an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal in contravention of R.15 and 18 must be quashed as beyond jurisdiction. A similar view was taken by the same court in Palace Cinema, Delhi Vs. Rameshwar Dayal (1958-11-Labour Law Journal-239) and Shama Magazine Vs. State Delhi and others (1958-II-Labour Law Journal 241). I am in complete agreement with the view held in the above decisions and I hold that the orders in question are liable to be quashed on this ground alone. 7. Learned counsel for petitioners also urged that the 2nd respondent failed to consider relevant aspects of the matter in passing, the order. It was stated that the audited balance sheets and profit and loss accounts of these companies were accepted by the State Government, the Central Government and the Government of the United Kingdom for the purpose of assessment of taxes and that the prayer should not have been so lightly granted, as some of these documents are those which even shareholders have not a right to inspect. It was also pointed out that the evidence adduced by the 1st respondent before the Tribunal did not warrant the production or inspection of these documents. These certainly are matters to be taken into consideration by the Tribunal before passing an order for production of documents and inspection thereof. I do not consider it necessary to consider these aspects more elaborately at this stage as I am allowing the petition on the ground mentioned earlier. It is sufficient to say that in case an application supported by an affidavit is made by the 1st respondent hereafter, the 2nd respondent should decide the matter in accordance with the principles laid down in the decisions cited above as well as other authoritative decisions on the point. 8. It is sufficient to say that in case an application supported by an affidavit is made by the 1st respondent hereafter, the 2nd respondent should decide the matter in accordance with the principles laid down in the decisions cited above as well as other authoritative decisions on the point. 8. Sri Balagangadhara Menon, learned counsel for the 2nd respondent stated that it appears from the records of the case that the petitioners have acquiesced in the order Ext. E. In the absence of a counter by either of the respondents raising such a plea, I do not consider it necessary or proper to express any opinion on the same. 9. In view of my finding that there is no proper application for production and inspection of documents by the 1st respondent, the order Ext. E as well as the notice Ext. F must be and are quashed. The Original Petition is thus allowed but in the circumstances I make no order as to costs. Allowed.