JUDGMENT
S. K. Keshote, J
1. The appellant-Regional Director, Employees’ State Insurance Corporation, has filed this appeal under Section 82 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act and challenge has been made therein to the order of the Employees’ Insurance Court at Ahmedabad dated 26th April, 1996 passed in E.S.I. Application No. 64 of 1989.
2. The respondents filed application under Section 75 read with Section 76 of the Employees’ State Insurance Act, 1948 before E.S.I. Court at Ahmedabad in which the appellant herein was one of the opponents. In this application, prayer has been made for quashing the notice and order passed by the officer of the Corporation. This application has been contested by the appellant by filing written statement. Vide Ex. 19 issues have been framed, and the evidence of the applicant-respondents’ witness were recorded. The appellant has also examined its witnesses. The appellant herein, filed an application Ext. 67 in which prayer has been made for issuance of summons to the witnesses, i.e., person from Ahmedabad Electricity Company, Lal Darwaja, Ahmedabad. By this application, the appellant prayed for calling of the said witness to produce the documents as mentioned in the application. Some documents have also been produced by the appellant along with the said application. The Court issued witness summons on the said application but later on the respondents filed their objection Ex. 68 and contested the said application. Under the order impugned in this appeal, the E.S.I. Court has passed the order, which reads as under :
“The witness, who is the Concerned person from the Ahmedabad Electricity Co., Ahmedabad should produce relevant documents only for proving the case of the opponent No. 1 which is made out in written statement Ext. 12 and he is not permitted to produce the documents which are not relevant for the purpose of decision of the application and those documents which are irrelevant and those documents which relates for proving a new case of the opponent No. 1 which is made out in application Ex. 67 for witness summons. No order as to costs”.
So by this order, the witness called from Ahmedabad Electricity Co. was directed to produce only those documents proving the case of the opponent No. 1 which is made out in its written statement but the said witness was not permitted to produce the documents which were not relevant for the purpose of the decision of the application filed by the respondents’ and those documents which were irrelevant and those documents which relate for proving a new case of the appellant, which is stated to be made out in the application Ex. 67 for witness summons.
3. Leaned Counsel for the appellant contended that the Court below has misdirected itself on the basic question that every party has a right to summon the witness. The defence was taken which was an additional defence that the provisions of E.S.I. Act are applicable to the establishments of the respondent as all of its establishments are to be clubbed together. To prove that case, the witness summons has been sought for against the Ahmedabad Electricity Company and the Court below has committed an error in considering it to be a case where the appellant has tried to make out a new case.
4. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondents contended that it is only an interlocutory order against which no appeal does lie. In support of this contention, he placed reliance on the decision in the case of E. S. I. Corporation v. Western Plastic Co. reported in 1976 LIC 1369. Learned Counsel for the respondents further contended that no substantial question of law arise in the present appeal and as such otherwise also, this appeal deserves no acceptance. Lastly, the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that if this Court grants the application of the appellant Ex. 67 then the respondents may be given an opportunity to produce additional evidence as this application has been filed after closure of the evidence by the respondents.
5. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties.
6. It is true that appeal under Section 82 of the Act does lie before this Court only on the substantial question of law. However, under the impugned order, the lower Court has restrained the witness which has been summoned by it not to produce those documents which are not relevant to the case and those documents which are irrelevant and further those documents which relate to proving a new case by the appellant. The question which does arise in this case is – where once the Court has issued witness summons, it could have passed such a restricted order against the witness by giving wide discretion to him to choose which of the documents has to be produced and which documents should not be produced. Apart from this, it is very difficult for a witness to decide which document is relevant for the purpose of decision of the application and which is not. It is also very difficult for the witness to decide which are the documents of relevance. Sum and substance of the order seems, to be that the documents for which the prayer has been made to be summoned from Ahmedabad Electricity Co. relates to a new case sought to be raised in the application, i.e., which was not pleaded in the written statement. The case of E.S.I. appellant herein, is that the establishments of the respondents are covered under the provisions of E.S.I. Act and all the establishments of the respondents are to be clubbed together. These are the additional defence raised and to prove the same, the appellant wanted, to produce documents from the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. to show that though the connection has been taken in the name of one establishment but all the establishments are using electric connections. This is nothing but only an evidence to prove the defence taken by the appellant. The Court below has completely misconstrued the defence taken by the appellant and in the garb that the appellant is raising some new case, has restricted the production of documents by the witness which has been summoned from the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. on the application of the appellant Ex. 67. Even if it is taken that the appellant has sought to raise a new point then proper course would have been to permit the appellant to amend the written statement. That course has also not been adopted. These are the matters relating to the beneficial provision, i.e., the provision which has been enacted for the benefit of the workmen and in such matters, the approach of the Court should have been to see that the benefit of the benevolent Act is not being denied to the workman. The ESI Court should have taken a more practical approach to advance justice as well as to see that the workmen should not have been deprived of their legitimate benefits of the benevolent provisions.
7. In the result, this appeal is allowed and consequently the application of the appellant Ex. 67 is allowed and the witness summoned from the Ahmedabad Electricity Co. is directed to produce all the documents as prayed for by the appellant. To avoid any further complication in the matter, it is also open to the appellant to move formal application for amendment of its written statement. The respondents shall be entitled to produce the evidence in rebuttal against the documents now to be produced by the witness summoned from the Ahmedabad Electricity Company.
8. Appeal allowed.