1988 PLP 687 (PLC(CS))

M.S. Bokhari for Respondent. Date of hearing: 19th January, 1988. The order dated 26‑10‑1987 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer, Punjab Labour Court No.3, Lahore at Ferozewala is reported to be wrong and improper, whereby the application of the petitioner union for summoning certain record from the respondent was partly accepted directing the respondent to produce certain documents and refusing to issue any direction with regard to the rest.

2. The documents are required by the‑ petitioner to prove its industrial dispute pending in the learned lower Court. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and have come to the conclusion that the order of the learned lower Court is unexceptional. The record mentioned at serial No.2 of the application made to the learned lower Court pertains to demand No.4, wherein the claim is that scales of the permanent employees be increased by per cent. The record sought to be summoned to prove the fifty errand is the pay register. The said register cannot in any manner d help the petitioner to prove the demand, because the evidence, which is to be produced to show the justification of the demand, may be of some other kind and not the pay register, inasmuch as the said register would show what is the present scale. Needless to say that the present scale is undisputed and is known to both the parties. In item No.3 attendance register for the years January 1983 to June, 1987 is mentioned and the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the said record is needed to prove demands Nos.7 to

10. In demand No.7 shift allowance, in demand No.8 tea and meals allowance and in demand No.9 attendance allowance have been claimed. Ex facie attendance register is not relevant to the demands Nos.7, 8 and 10 as the said demands have no connection with the attendance of the workers and for allowing medical facilities. So far as demand No.9 is concerned, attendance register is relevant to it but the learned lower Court has allowed the register of some years. All the attendance registers from January, 1983 to 1987 are not relevant. For future attendance allowance the attendance register for the past has absolutely no relevancy. Likewise the attendance register of temporary employees and attendance register of officers are not relevant.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner says that payment register mentioned at item No.6 is relevant for the demand of bonus for the previous years. He says that it is to be shown that large number of amounts was spent on the officers. The register could be relevant if the demand had been that the remunerations of the officers be reduced but for the purpose of bonus the register is not relevant. The reply of the respondent to the application for summoning the record was that no registers mentioned at serials Nos. l, 7, 8 and 9 are maintained. This being so, no question of production of the said registers arises. At item No.11 list of temporary employees is mentioned and the learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that this register is required for the demand that the services of temporary employees be made permanent. Learned counsel further says that it will be shown that permanent posts are lying vacant as some permanent persons may have been removed from service or they have left of their own accord. Apparently the list of temporary employees would not show as to any post of permanent employees is lying vacant, so the document is not relevant. At item No.13 expenditure vouchers are mentioned from January 1983 to June, 1987. Learned counsel says that the said vouchers are required for the demand of bonus. Again the demand is not for reducing the expenses, therefore, the expenditure vouchers are not relevant. The evidence which may be required to justify the claim of bonus may be some other but the vouchers mentioned above are not relevant.

4. At item No.14 ledger of accounts from January, 1983 to June, 1987 is mentioned. Statement of accounts may be relevant on the point of bonus which the respondent agreed before the learned lower Court to produce, therefore, the ledger of accounts has been rightly disallowed by the learned lower Court.

5. So far as vouchers of payments of income‑tax mentioned at item No.15 are concerned, the respondent has shown its willingness to produce the same. The last item relates to conveyance and entertainment expenditure alongwith other heads of expenditure from January, 1983 to June, 1987. Again since there is no demand for the reduction of the expenditure, therefore, so far as the claim of bonus' is concerned, the documents mentioned in item No.16 are not relevant.

6. As a result, the revision is dismissed. A.E. /496/Lb.P Revision dismissed.