Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

42. However, it appears that, there is typed order without date, without signature of the concerned Judicial Officer of the Labour Court. Therefore, as such, there is no order passed on that application directing present petitioners to produce the documents. Thus, unsigned, undated order typed on the application is doubtful. As such, what is contended in para 7 of the written notes of the argument, is incorrect. Therefore, finding of the Labour Court of drawing adverse inference as the documents sought which were not produced by the petitioners before the Labour Court, is perverse. After filing of reply, there was no order and the typed order which is produced, is neither signed by the concerned Labour Court' Judge nor there is any date, on which the said order came to be passed. It is informed by way of reply that, the documents is not in possession of the petitioners department as those were destroyed after 5 years as per Manual. The scanned application is reproduced for the sake of convenience as under:-