ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) ). The petitioner challenges the order passed by the Labour court, below Exhibit 25, being an application for production of documents, in reference (LCA-D) No. 80 of 1986, made on 5/09/1988. In the reference pending before the Labour Court No. 1, Ahmedabad, the respondent made the said application, seeking an order for production of balance-sheets of the years mentioned at item 1 and the Bonus Registers of the years mentioned in item 2 of the application. All that was said in the said application for production of these documents was in the following terms :"xxx xxx In the above mentioned matter the Second Party union prays before the Honourable Court to pass the order for the opponent (First Party) to submit the following records which are very essential for the reasonable and speedy conclusion of this dispute. 1. Balance-sheet of M/s. Kinarivala R. J. K. Industries of the years 1976, 1977, 1978, 1979, 1980, 1981, 1982, 1983. 1984, 1985, 1986 (eleven years) 2. Bonus registers (FORM-C) of M/s. Kinarivala RJ. K. Industries of the years from 1976 to 1986 (eleven years) xxx"on behalf of the petitioner, an endorsement was made below the said application that the petitioner did not plead any financial incapacity. It was further endorsed that the petitioner was a partnership concern and its balancesheet and profit and loss account were not to be treated as public documents. On the question of production of Bonus Registers, the endorsement on behalf of the petitioner was that the Bonus Registers were irrelevant for the purposes of adjudicating the wage demand as Form C contained the particulars of total wages earned in the year and the amount of bonus paid. The Tribunal, while considering this application, resorted to general observations to the effect that it was necessary to look ascertain financial condition of the petitioner, through the balance-sheets, in respect of which production was sought by the respondent. ( 2 ) ). Under Sec. 11 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the Labour court, undoubtedly, has the power to compel production of documents and material objects. However, before the Labour Court could order production and inspection of documents, it has to be satisfied as to the relevancy of such documents on the basis of the material that may be produced before it. However, before the Labour Court could order production and inspection of documents, it has to be satisfied as to the relevancy of such documents on the basis of the material that may be produced before it. This can be done by the applicant seeking production by setting out the necessary facts and contentions in the application, pointing out the necessity for producing those documents having regard to their nature and the manner in which they are to be relied upon. The power conferred on the industrial forum for getting the documents produced is not intended to enable any litigant to embark upon a fishing inquiry, with a hope to search for some material, on which reliance could be placed. This is not to say that in a fit case, after the appropriate material is placed on record and the necessity for production is pointed out, the Tribunal cannot order production of relevant documents, which would be necessary for the purpose of the adjudication of the dispute. It is obvious from the contents of the application made by the respondent that no effort whatsoever was made to indicate as to for what purpose the production was being sought and in what manner the documents were intended to be relied upon. The application for production, in the instant case, did not contain any material, to which the Labour Court could have applied its mind to determine the relevancy of the documents and to come to the conclusion whether the production should be ordered or not. If the purpose behind getting the documents mentioned at item 1 of the application was to bring home the point that the financial condition of the petitioner was sound, then that purpose is obviously, already served by the endorsement made on behalf of the petitioner, below that application- and, even before us, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner categorically- stated that the petitioner will never put up any defence of financial condition not being sound, because, in fact, the condition of the petitioner was sound enough to meet with any demand, which may be countenanced by the Labour Court on tenable grounds. ( 3 ) ). ( 3 ) ). As regards the production of Bonus Registers, it is evident that there is no demand in connection with any bonus that may be statutorily payable and, therefore, as the matter stands, at this stage, the relevancy of the Bonus registers is not shown. The Labour Court has, therefore, committed irregularity in exercise of its jurisdiction in directing the production of these documents in absence of any material disclosed in the application made before it. However to make it clear that, should any contingency arise, which requires looking into any of these documents and sufficient case is made out in that regard, it would be open to the Tribunal to consider the question as to whether direction to produce such document should be given to the petitioner or not. ( 4 ) ). The petition stands disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs. Ad interim relief stands vacated. .