- (1.)List has been revised-Heard Sri Chatterji, learned Counsel for the petitioner. No one has appeared for respondent No. 2 despite service of notice being sufficient in view of office report dated January 29, 2010.
(2.)An industrial dispute was raised by respondent No. 2 on behalf of the workers. It was referred to Industrial Tribunal and registered as Adjudication Case No. 232/1982; In the said Adjudication Case petitioner raised a preliminary objection that respondent No. 2 is not competent to raise the aforesaid dispute on behalf of the workmen as they are not members of the said Union and substantial number of workmen of the company, not being members of the said Union, are not interested in raising the dispute through the aforesaid Union. An application 22-D was also moved by the petitioner for summoning certain documents from respondent No. 2. On said application, on December 7, 1983 an order was passed directing respondent No. 2 to produce three documents, namely, (1) Constitution of the Union; (2) Membership register of the Union for the year 1982; and (3) The resolution, if any, or the Union for raising the dispute. Despite: sufficient time being granted, none of the above documents were produced by the respondent No. 2 for about ten years, whereupon impugned order dated October 31, 1994 was passed by the Tribunal permitting respondent No. 2 to continue representing the case of the workers and absolving it from the liability to produce the aforesaid documents, as the documents summoned were not available.
(3.)Learned Counsel for the petitioner has argued that the documents directed to be summoned from respondent No. 2 are material and relevant for deciding the competence of respondent No. 2 to raise the present industrial dispute and that the said documents are; supposed to be in possession of respondent No. 2 and, as such, it cannot be absolved of the liability to produce the same merely for the reason that it states that they are not available.