DECISION ' Heard Mr. A.De. Cruz, learned Advocate for the applicant and Mr. Abdul Karim Mograni, learned counsel for the respondents.
2. By this revision application the applicant has attacked the integrity, correctness and propriety of two orders passed by the learned Labour Court. Under two orders, dated 6-5-1990, the learned .
Labour Court allowed the applications of the respondents to produce certain documents. The main objection of Mr. De. Cruz is that those applications were filed after the side of the applicant was Closed in order to fill up the lacuna in the case of respondents and therefore those applications should not have been allowed and further that there is no reason given by the learned Labour Court for allowing the applications.
3. The third order under which the application of the applicant for production of document is said to have been rejected by the learned Labour Court, has not been produced by the applicant.
4. The person given by the learned Labour Court in allowing the applications of the respondent is that under section 25-A of I.R.O., 1969, the Labour Court has to go through all the facts to pass such order as may be just and proper. This is provided under subsection (5) of section 25-A. I do not find anything illegal, improper or incorrect in the orders of the learned Labour Court to call for interference of this Tribunal in exercise of its suo motu powers of revision. However, if the documents are allowed to be produced after the side of the applicant has been closed it will be in the interest of justice that the applicant be allowed to submit his documents, if he so desire.
Revision application stands disposed of accordingly.