Newspapers Ltd, Allahabad v. State of U. P — 1981 DIGILAW 1116 (ALL)

ORDER V. K. Mehrotra, J. - This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution assails an order made by the Payment of Wages Authority, Allahabad on Aug. 4, 1981 directing the petitioner to produce the documents asked for by the third respondent before it. The dispute arose in the following circumstances. 2. The third respondent made an application under S. 15 of the Payment of Wages Act claiming that some amounts due to him were paid by the petitioner in full. The amounts claimed related to the wages of the petitioner for the months of January, February and March, 1980 and for bonus for the year 1978-79. The third respondent also claimed some amount by way of compensation for non-payment of these amounts. 3. Parties filed their written statements and it appears that in the reply filed by the petitioner, it took the stand that various amounts had been paid to the third respondent by way of advance. The petitioner claimed adjustment of these amounts. Thereafter, the third respondent made an application on Apr. 28, 1981 praying that the petitioner be directed to produce before the Authority the documents mentioned therein. Paragraph 6 of the petition enumerates the documents which were asked to be produced by the petitioner. The petitioner filed an objection and the matter was fixed for orders before the Authority for Aug. 4, 1981. 4. On the date fixed, no one appeared on behalf of the petitioner before the Authority. The third respondent was represented and after hearing submissions on his behalf, the Authority passed an order directing the petitioner to produce the documents asked for by the third respondent. A copy of that order is annexure (3) to the petition which runs thus : 4-8-81 oknh mifLFkr gSA izfroknh dh vksj ls dksbZ vf/kd`r izfrfuf/k mifLFkr ugha gS oknh dh vksj ls vfHkys[k ryc djus ds laca/k esa cgl lquh xbZA izfroknh n~okjk ekaxs x;s vfHkys[k vxyh lquokbZ fnukad 17&8&81 dks nkf[ky djsaA g0ts0ds0flag 5. When the petition was presented in this Court, the third respondent appeared through Sri J. N. Tiwari and parties were directed to exchange their affidavits so that the matter could be finally disposed of without a formal order of admission being passed. The parties have exchanged their affidavits and are represented by their Counsel. 6. When the petition was presented in this Court, the third respondent appeared through Sri J. N. Tiwari and parties were directed to exchange their affidavits so that the matter could be finally disposed of without a formal order of admission being passed. The parties have exchanged their affidavits and are represented by their Counsel. 6. The impugned order, quoted above, is in the form of a bald direction to the petitioner to produce the documents asked for by the third respondent. It does not contain any recital about the documents which are to be produced and about their relevancy to the controversy which the Authority is called upon to decide. It is true that under the Payment of Wages Act and the Rules framed thereunder, it was within the competence of the Authority to have directed the petitioner to produce the documents yet the authority could only ask the petitioner to produce such documents which were relevant to the issue before it. The Authority has a discretion in the matter and is not called upon mechanically to order production of documents whenever a prayer is made for it. This pre-supposes that before a direction for production of document is made, the Authority must apply its mind to the question whether, prima facie, the documents asked for were relevant for determination of the controversy or not and if so which of the documents was so relevant. The impugned order does not indicate that the Authority did so. Even in the affidavits there is no mention of there being any examination by the Authority of the question of their relevancy or otherwise. 7. It has been urged by Sri J. N. Tiwari for the third respondent that the petitioner having admittedly absented itself on the date fixed, could not be heard and complain about the order thereafter. This submission cannot be accepted for, as seen above, the jurisdiction of the Authority to direct production of documents is limited to a direction only in regard to documents which are relevant for the determination of the controversy. In fact, the Authority is, as it were, under a legal obligation to determine the relevancy of the documents to be produced before making a direction to that effect. That, in effect, was the view taken by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. In fact, the Authority is, as it were, under a legal obligation to determine the relevancy of the documents to be produced before making a direction to that effect. That, in effect, was the view taken by this Court in Civil Misc. Writ Petn. No. 1672 of 1961 (M/s. Sirdhan Lal Satish Kumar v. Labour Court) decided by S. N. Dwivedi, J. (as he then was) on Nov. 23, 1962. 8. Sri B. D. Agrawal, for the petitioners, sought to urge that the application on the basis whereof production of documents had been directed by the Authority was itself not maintainable for it was not supported by an affidavit as required by the relevant rules. I have not permitted him to raise this submission because there is no foundation for it in the writ petition and the allegation that no such affidavit was filed was made by the petitioner for the first time in the rejoinder affidavit. 9. Having regard to the legal position, the conclusion is inescapable that the impugned order dated August 4, 1981 cannot be sustained. It deserves to be and is quashed. The parties are directed to appear before the Authority which shall, before requiring the petitioner to produce the documents, consider the question of their relevancy after hearing the parties in that regard. The Authority would, naturally, also consider the question about the advisability of directing the petitioner to produce the documents pertaining to the year 1979-80 about which, according to the counsel for the third respondent, there could be no doubt that they were relevant for the petitioner had itself referred to several payments allegedly made to the third respondent during the course of that year. Learned counsel for the parties have stated that the Authority has fixed the matter before itself on Dec. 15, 1981. They shall, therefore, appear before the Authority on that day in connection with the determination of the question of production of the documents asked for by the third respondent through his application dated Apr. 28, 1981. The Authority will naturally deal with the matter in accordance with law. Since the petitioners admittedly absented themselves on the appropriate date before the Authority, it appears proper to direct them to pay the costs of the third respondent which are assessed at Rs. 200/- (rupees two hundred) only.