DECISION ' Succinctly stated, this Revision Application has arisen in the following circumstances:-
1. In the course of a proceeding before the Labour Court, under section 25-A of the IRO, the present respondent put an application under section 36(2), for directing the present appellant to produce the following documents which were in their possession:-
(i) "Original bills of labour charges for 140 contractor workers, produced as photostat by the applicant;"
(ii) "Running bills of the contractor M/s. Bright Engineering Company with respect to the period 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990-91;" and
(iii) "Production report of Suzuki Vans produced by the respondent for 1988-89, 1989-90 and 1990- 91."
2. The present appellants resisted the application. It was said on their behalf that the originals of the documents mentioned at serial No,1 were not traceable, as the same had been consigned to the record. Otherwise too, these bills were for a period much beyond the date of the retrenchment of the workers, or were irrelevant. It was further alleged that the figures of the production of Suzuki Vans for the year ending 30-6-1988 have already been filed, and therefore, the filing of the production figures, as demanded at serial number 3 was not called for, and the only purpose behind the presentation of the application, was the harassment of the management.
3. The learned Presiding Officer for the reasons given by him, repelled the contentions raised in the objections and granted the application, further cautioning, that if the appellant did not produce the aforesaid documents the photostat copies brought on the record filed by the applicant/respondent would be taken into consideration as primary evidence. This led to the filing of the Revision Application.
4. Mr. A. Hafeez learned counsel for the applicant with a massive array of citations, argued at considerable length as to what were the rights of the owner of an industry for re-structuring including the retrenchment of their workmen, in order to advance and further the interest of the concern. He took me through the record justifying the action taken by the appellant. According to him but for this timely action the company would have been doldrums.
5. In my enquiry whether any observation from this Court in regard to the action taken by the appellant being bona fide or otherwise, was likely to influence the Court below, the only reply I could get was that unless proper guidelines to examine the issues were forthcoming from this Court, there could be a grave apprehension of miscarriage of justice to the great detriment of the appellant.
6. I am afraid, to give any sort of direction or making any observation expounding the principles or proposition of law, as Mr. Hafeez wanted like me to do, for the guidance of the Labour Court is not the function of an appellate or revisional authority. The subordinate Courts must be allowed, totally unfattered and untramelled to apply their minds to the best of their abilities and understanding to the cases that are before them. There can be no two opinions about it.
' The Revision Application to my mind is misconceived. I will therefore dismiss it.