- (1.) BY means of this petition an interlocutory order dated 4 April 1968 passed by the presiding officer of an industrial tribunal has been challenged. The industrial tribunal is seized of a reference made to it for adjudication by the State Government. In the proceedings before it, union 2, which is a party to the proceedings, objected to the acceptance of the accounts furnished by the company. By means of the impugned order the Carew and Co. , had been directed to produce the records mentioned in the order, before the industrial tribunal.
(2.) SRI Bishun Singh, the learned Counsel for the petitioner, has made the following two submissions before us: (1) That the order violates the provisions of Section 23 of the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as the Act. ). (2) That the production of records would cause great inconvenience to the Carew and Co. , which has its business spread at several places in India and Pakishan.
(3.) LEARNED Counsel's contention is that Section 23 of the Act requires, as a condition precedent to summoning of accounts, that the presiding officer must record his considered opinion that the accounts of the company are not correct. In our judgment the submission is based upon misreading and misconception of Section 23 of the Act.;