Delhi District Court
The vs The on 19 March, 2011
IN THE COURT OF DR. T. R. NAVAL ADDITIONAL DISTRICT
& SESSIONS JUDGE / PRESIDING OFFICER LABOUR COURT
KARKARDOOMA COURTS, DELHI
ID NO. 324/10
In The Matter Between:
Shri Salekh Chand
The Workman
AND
Delhi Development Authority
The Management
ORDER
This order will dispose of an application U/o 12 Rule 8 read with Section 151 CPC dated 26.10.2010 filed by the workman for seeking direction to produce the documents by Management No. 1 and Management No.2.
2. It has been mentioned in the application that documents mentioned here in below are in power and possession of Management No.1 & Management No.2 and the managements may be directed to produce those documents:
1. The dispatch & receipt register showing the dispatch of LPC, service book, personal file of the workman Sh.
Salekh Chand on 12.12.1994 from DDA to Delhi Jal board/Management No.2 with duly flagged page of the relevant.
2. The dispatch & receipt register showing the containing receipt/acknowledgement of LPC, service book, personal file of the workman Sh. Salekh Chand on 12.12.1994 by the Delhi Jal Board/Management No.2 from ID No.324/10 Page 1 of 6 DDA/Management No.1 with duly flagged page of the relevant record.
3. The Copy/copies of the forwarding letter/letters under which the Record mentioned in sub Para no.2, showing the addressee/s to whom the records were sent & received as per entry in the dispatch & receipt register.
4. The absentee statements relating to the workman for the period w.e.f. 02.12.1994 to 08.06.1997 maintained by the Management No.2, Delhi Jal Board.
5. The correspondence/communications exchanged between the Management No.2 Delhi Jal Board intimating to the effect that Salekh Chand workman allegedly failed to join duty after 02.12.1994.
6. The record showing the monitoring of the names of the officials/workmen who failed to join duties in terms EO no.279 dated 30.11.1994 & action taken report by the Management No.2 Delhi Jal Board.
7. The service book of Salekh Chand/workman showing the period from 02.12.1994 to 08.06.1997 and entries of its verification by the concerned officer as required under the service rules as applicable to Delhi Jal Board Employees.
8. The Record showing that the lien of the officials transferred from DDA to Delhi Jal Board in terms of EO no. 279 dated 30.11.1994 was terminated from the post/sanctioned strength of the DDA.
9. The record showing the details of deductions/recoveries of rental etc. in respect of Govt. residential accommodation no.D-77, Janta Flats Ashok Vihar Phase-II, Delhi-110052 for the period 02.12.1994 to 08.06.1997 & the order issued for vacating & handing over the possession by the workman to Delhi Jal Board.
10. The record Showing the details of Joining & non Joining duties under Delhi Jal Board in terms of the Executive orders maintained by the management No.1 ID No.324/10 Page 2 of 6 DDA & Management No.2 Delhi Jal Board.
11. The record Showing the details of Joining & non Joining duties under Delhi Jal Board in terms of the Executive orders maintained by the management No.1 DDA & Management No.2 Delhi Jal Board.
12. The record file containing the duty resumption reports submitted by the officials in terms of EO no.279 dated 30.11.1994 maintained by the Delhi Jal Board.
13. The record of intimation from Delhi Jal Board to DDA Showing that Salekh Chand allegedly failed to join duty in terms of EO no.279 dated 30.11.1994.
14. The record showing the reasons for obtaining duplicate LPC of The Workman Sh. Salekh Chand by The Delhi Jal Board from DDA after lapse of More than three years from 02.12.1994 to 08.06.1997.
3. The management No.1 contested this application on the grounds inter-alia that application of the workman is an abuse of process of law and same is liable for dismissal. It has been filed after lapse of 12 years. As Sh. Salekh Chand workman was transferred from DDA on 01.12.1994 vide office order No.477 to M-2 as such no record of the workman is available in the office of the Management No.1. The personal file of the workman was sent to Director (Administration & Personal), MCD on 25.09.1997. The Management No.1 prayed for dismissal of application.
4. The Management No.2 contested this application on the ground that the workman joined his duties with Management No. 2 on 09.06.1997 and as such no record of the workman is ID No.324/10 Page 3 of 6 available with the Management No.2 prior to the period 09.06.1997. The documents sought to be produced are not relevant. He could not be allowed to make a roving inquiry in the garb of production of documents. No such record as prayed for in the application is in power and possession of Management No.2. The management No.2 does not maintain any record showing the details of joining and non joining of duties under Delhi Jal Board in terms of executive orders. The Management No.2 also denied the remaining averments and prayed for dismissal of application.
5. I have heard arguments of Ld. Counsels for the parties and perused file.
6. The relevant facts which are necessary for disposal of this application are that the workman had been serving the Management No.1 as a Khalasi. The services of the workman were transferred to Delhi Jal Board, Earst While Delhi Water Supply & Sewage Disposal Undertaking w.e.f. 02.12.1994. As the workman was on leave during this period so he could not join his duties with Management No.2 on due date and when he reported for duties to Management No.2 he was allegedly not allowed to join his duties. In these circumstances, he could not perform his duties either with Management No.1 or Management No.2 for the period 02.12.1994 to 09.06.1997 as the Management No.2 with the intervention of Labour Department allowed him to join his duties only on 09.06.1997. A reference is pending before this court to answer whether the workman ID No.324/10 Page 4 of 6 abandoned his job during said period or the managements refused him to perform his duties?
7. Rule 8 of Order 12 of CPC read as under:
"R. 8. Notice to produce document.- Notice to produce documents shall be in Form No.12 in appendix C, with such variations as circumstances may require. An affidavit of the pleader, or his clerk, of the service of any notice to produce, and of the time when it was served, with a copy of the notice to produce, shall in all cases be sufficient evidence of the service of the notice, and of the time when it was served."
8. Form No.12 in Appendix-C runs as under:
"No. 12NOTICE TO PRODUCE (GENERAL FORM) (O.12, R.8) (Title as in No.1, supra) Take notice that you are hereby required to produce and show to the Court at the first hearing of this suit all books, papers, letters, copies of letters and other writings and documents in your custody, possession or power containing any entry, memorandum or minutes relating to the matters in question in this suit, and particularly G.H. Pleader [or agent] for plaintiff [or defendant].
To, E. F., pleader, [or agent] for defendant [or plaintiff]."
9. After considering the reply, contentions and arguments of parties, I am of the view that application of the workman is liable for dismissal. The reasons which support my decision are firstly, that provisions of Rule 8 of Order 12 CPC read with Form 12 in appendix - C make it clear that notice for production of documents has to be issued/served at the earliest and ID No.324/10 Page 5 of 6 preferably for the first hearing of the suit. In the present case a reference dated 21.05.1998 was received on 01.06.1998. Statement of claim was filed on 09.02.1999. WS on behalf of Management No.1 was filed on 17.12.1999 and on behalf of Management No.2 was filed on 07.04.2000. Issues were framed in the year 2000. The evidence of the workman was closed on 07.03.2007 and this case is pending at the stage of Management Evidence when the application was filed on 26.10.2010. Thus the present application is very belated.
10. Secondly, in their replies both the managements have categorically pleaded that the documents sought to be produced are not in their power and possession and in these circumstances, no useful purpose would be served in making directions to them to produce the documents as that would only contribute in delay in disposal of this case. Appropriate inference will be drawn at final stages as per law.
11. Lastly, the controversy referred to in the present reference may be decided without making directions to the managements to produce above mentioned documents.
12. In view of the above reasons and discussion, application of the workman for production of documents is dismissed.
Announced in the Open Court
on 19th March, 2011 (DR. T. R. NAVAL)
Additional District & Sessions Judge
Presiding Officer, Labour Court,
Karkardooma Courts, Delhi
ID No.324/10 Page 6 of 6