THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1574 of 2014 Date: 18-07-2014 Between :- D.Manohar Reddy.
… Petitioner.
And The Managing Director, M/s.Indoco Remedies Ltd.
… Respondents.
Counsel for the petitioner : Sri K.Ravi Sankar Babu Counsel for respondent : - NA -
This Court made the following:-
THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.1574 of 2014 ORDER:
This Revision is filed challenging the order dt.25-04-
2014 in I.A.No.22 of 2014 in I.D.No.9 of 2013 of the Chairperson-cum-Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Anantapuramu.
2. The services of the petitioner, who was working with respondent-company, were terminated and questioning the said termination, the petitioner had filed I.D.No.9 of 2013 before the above Court.
3. I.A.No.22 of 2014 was filed by petitioner to direct the respondent to produce the appointment letters with terms and conditions of the Medical Representatives who worked under respondent in Anantapur, Kadapa, Kurnool and Chittoor districts in all divisions, which are in the custody of respondent. Petitioner contended that these documents are essential to prove the attitude of respondent, its behaviour towards him and unfair labour practice adopted by it.
4. The respondent filed a counter contending that these documents are not relevant and therefore there is no necessity to produce them.
5. By order dt.25-04-2014, the said I.A. was rejected. The Court below held that the petitioner did not mention anywhere about the relevancy of the documents to the relief sought by him in the I.D. and the documents sought to be summoned from the custody of respondent would not determine the attitude of respondent and its behaviour towards it’s employees.
6. Challenging the same, this Revision is filed.
7. Heard Sri K.Ravi Sankar Babu, learned counsel for petitioner.
8. The learned counsel for petitioner submits that the Court below erred in dismissing the application filed by petitioner to direct the respondent to produce appointment letters in respect of Medical Representatives, who were working under it in Rayalaseema area; if they are produced, they would indicate the attitude of the Management and its behaviour towards its employees. He further contended that the petitioner was victimized by respondent and this can be demonstrated by producing these documents which are in the custody of the Management.
9. The dispute raised in the I.D. is the validity of termination of services of petitioner as a Medical Representative of the respondent. Production of appointment letters of other Medical Representatives, who are also employed by respondent, would not in any way be relevant to prove that the termination of petitioner is invalid or on account of victimization. The invalidity of the termination or fact that he is victimized has to be established by petitioner by other evidence.
I therefore do not find any error of jurisdiction in the order passed by the Court below rejecting the said I.A.
10. Therefore, the Civil Revision Petition is dismissed observing that it is for the petitioner to establish by leading evidence as to invalidity of the order terminating him from service or about his alleged victimization by any other means which he chooses. No costs.
11. Miscellaneous applications pending if any, in this Civil Revision Petition shall stand closed.
JUSTICE M.S.RAMACHANDRA RAO Date: 18-07-2014 vsv