DECISION ' This is an application under section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, invoking the suo motu revisional jurisdiction of this Tribunal to call for R & P of grievance Application No, 104 of 1988, pending before the learned Sindh Labour Court No, IV, at Karachi, in order to consider the legality and the propriety of the order, dated 1-11-1988, passed by the learned Presiding Officer.
2. I have heard Mr. A DeCruz, learned Advocate for the applicant.
3. It appeais that the applicant had moved an application before the learned Labour Court to direct the respondents to produce certain documents. The learned Labour Court passed the order but the. Documents were not produced by the respondents.
The main grievance of the learned Counsel for the applicant is that the learned Labour Court has failed to use coercive measures to compel the respondents to produce documents. Under Order 11 Rule 12, C.P.C., the consequences of the non-compliance of the order of discovery on oath is provided. It appears that neither the applicant has moved an application under Orders 11 and 12, C.P.C. For the discovery of the documents on oath nor the orders were passed by the learned Labour Court directing the respondents to discover the documents on oath. It was an application merely for production of the documents. Under Order 16, Rule 6, C.P.C., any person may be summoned to produce a document, but, no such application appears to have been made for summoning the respondents to produce the documents. Consequently no coercive measure, as provided under this Order could be taken against the respondents. Besides these powers are exercised by the Court in its discretion. Therefore, I find no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned Labour Court and would dismiss the application in limine.