Bombay High Court

VASANTDADA SHETKARI SAHAKARI SAKHAR KARKHANA LTD THR. ITS MANAGING DIRECTORversusSHRI BABURAO APPA PANDHARE AND ANR

Disposal: Disposed Off
Bench: M W CHANDWANI

Holding

The court held that statutory preservation periods do not bar the court’s authority to order production of older registers for adjudicating wage, bonus, and leave claims.

Summary

The petitioner, Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, challenged an Industrial Court order directing it and the operator of its sugar factory to produce wage, bonus, leave encashment registers dating back to 2003 and the 2017 Tripartite Agreement. The petitioner argued that statutory preservation periods under the Factories Act, 1948, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 required disposal of records older than three years, making the court’s direction illegal. The respondent, a former workman, contended that the records were necessary to adjudicate his claims for unpaid wages, bonus, and leave encashment and that no proof was offered that the records were unavailable. The High Court held that the expiration of the preservation period does not preclude the court’s power to order production of documents for dispute resolution, especially when the records are merely “not traceable” and not positively shown to be destroyed. Consequently, the writ petitions were dismissed and the Industrial Court was instructed to dispose of the matter expeditiously.

Issues considered

Can the court direct production of wage, bonus, and leave registers that are beyond the statutory preservation period under the Factories Act, Payment of Wages Act, and Payment of Bonus Act?
Does a claim that records are ‘not traceable’ exempt the petitioner from the duty to produce them?
Is the Tripartite Agreement dated 04.07.2017 required to be produced in the pending adjudication of wage and bonus claims?

Legislation cited

Subjects

document production
statutory preservation period
wage registers
bonus registers
leave encashment
industrial court
tripartite agreement
lease operation
securitisation
code of civil procedure

Judgment

7-WP-15910-2022.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIRCUIT BENCH AT KOLHAPUR

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

WRIT PETITION NO. 15910 OF 2022

M/s Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd
Through Its Managing Director ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Vasant Dada Sutar And Ors ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11809 OF 2024

Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd
Thr. Its Managing Director ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Lalaso Bandu Mujawar And Anr ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11923 OF 2025

M/s Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Sidram Keru Karande And Anr ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11824 OF 2024

Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd
Thr. Its Managing Director ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Baburao Appa Pandhare And Anr ...Respondents

Shubham 1
7-WP-15910-2022.doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11922 OF 2025

M/s Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd
Thr. Its Managing Director ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Kondiba Siddha Katkare And Anr ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11924 OF 2025

M/s. Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana
Ltd. Sangli Thr. Managing Director ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Jagnnath Tanappa Kurade And Ors ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 132 OF 2023

Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd.
Thr Its Managing Director ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Ashok Ganpatrao Shinde And Ors ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION (STAMP) NO. 24304 OF 2022

M/s Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Balaso Ganpati Patil And Anr ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 15029 OF 2023

M/s Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Namdev Kruhna Jagtap And Anr ...Respondents

Shubham 2
7-WP-15910-2022.doc

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 4513 OF 2024

M/s Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari
Sakhar Karkhana Ltd ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Vidyadhar Baburao Ashtekar And Anr ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11823 OF 2024

Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd Thr. Its Managing Director ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Arun Ramchandra Uplavikar And Anr ...Respondents

WITH
WRIT PETITION NO. 11810 OF 2024

M/s Vasantdada Shetkari Sahakari Sakhar
Karkhana Ltd Thr. Its Managing Director ...Petitioner
VERSUS
Shri Sampat Shamrao Suryawanshi And Anr ...Respondents

***
Mr. Sanadiip Mutaalik a/w Simran Sameena a/w Ms. Ketaki S. for Petitioners.

Mr. Nagesh Chavan a/w Mr. Abhang Suryawanshi for Respondent No. 1.
***
CORAM : M.W. CHANDWANI, J.
DATE : 28th April, 2026.
P. C. :

1. All these Petitions challenge the Judgment and Order dated

04.05.2022 passed by the Industrial Court, Sangli, whereby the Application

(Exhibit U-7) filed by Respondent No. 1 in each Petition seeking direction to

produce original wage register, original bonus register, and original leave

Shubham 3
7-WP-15910-2022.doc

production of Tripartite Agreement dated 04.07.2017 executed amongst

Petitioner-Sugar Factory, Respondent No. 2-Operator and the Bank in each

Petition was allowed.

2. All these Petitions arise out of similar complaints filed by the

Respondent No. 1 in each Petition i.e. erstwhile workmen of Petitioner-Sugar

Factory. Further, since Petitioner-Sugar Factory and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3

are same in all Petitions and common questions of law and facts are involved

in all the Petitions, they are being disposed of analogously.

3. Respondent No. 1 retired between 2012 and 2014 from Petitioner-

Sugar Factory. Thereafter, Petitioner-Sugar Factory was taken over by secured

creditors under the provisions of the Securitisation and Reconstruction of

Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002. Respondent

No. 2-Operator was the highest bidder in the auction held for running

Petitioner-Sugar Factory. Thereby, in accordance with the Tripartite

Agreement dated 04.07.2017, Petitioner-Sugar Factory is being operated by

Respondent No. 2-Operator on the lease basis.

4. Respondent No. 1 filed complaints before the Industrial Court alleging

non-payment of wages, bonus, and leave encashment. In the said complaints,

Application (Exhibit U-7) was filed by Respondent No. 1 seeking directions

against Petitioner-Sugar Factory and Respondent No. 2-Operator to produce

Shubham 4
7-WP-15910-2022.doc

wage registers, bonus registers, and leave encashment registers of the years

as follows:

Sr. No. Writ Petition Nos. Register sought for
relevant year
1. WP-15910-2022 2003-2011
2. WP-4513-2024 2003-2011
3. WP-11810-2024 2003-2016
4. WP-132-2023 2003-2020
5. WP-11809-2024 2003-2014
6. WP-11922-2025 2003-2015
7. WP-11824-2024 2003-2017
8. WP-11923-2025 2003-2014
9. WP-11924-2025 2003-2013
10. WPST-24304-2022 2003-2013
11. WP-11823-2024 2003-2015
12. WP-15029-2023 2003-2011.

Further Application (Exhibit U-8) was filed by Respondent No. 1

seeking direction against Petitioner-Sugar Factory and Respondent No. 2-

Operator to produce Tripartite Agreement dated 04.07.2017.

5. The said Applications were opposed by Petitioner-Sugar Factory as well

as Respondent No. 2-Operator. However, by the impugned order, the

Industrial Court directed both Petitioner-Sugar Factory and Respondent No.

2-Operator to produce the documents in their respective possession.

Aggrieved thereby, the present Writ Petitions have been filed by Petitioner-

Sugar Factory.

Shubham 5
7-WP-15910-2022.doc

6. Though various grounds have been raised, the principal contention of

the learned counsel for Petitioner-Sugar Factory is that, as per the Factories

Act, 1948, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and the Payment of Bonus Act,

1965, the relevant registers are required to be preserved only for a period of

Three years after the last entry. Therefore, the Industrial Court ought not to

have directed production of records which are more than Ten years old. It is

further contended that the records are not traceable with Petitioner-Sugar

Factory.

7. On the contrary, the learned counsel for Respondent No. 1 submits that

no corroborative evidence has been produced in support of Petitioner-Sugar

Factory’s contention, nor has any categorical statement been made on

affidavit to that extent. Accordingly, he supports the order passed by the

Industrial Court.

8. Perusal of the impugned order reveals that, Petitioner-Sugar Factory as

well as Respondent No. 2-Operator were directed to produce all such

registers for the relevant period, along with the Tripartite Agreement

executed amongst Petitioner-Sugar Factory, Respondent No. 2-Operator, and

the Bank.

9. Since the complaint in question relates to unpaid wages, bonus, and

leave encashment, I do not find any illegality in the Application filed by

Respondent No. 1 before the Industrial Court seeking production of the

Shubham 6
7-WP-15910-2022.doc

abovesaid documents. The very issue of unpaid wages, bonus, and leave

encashment was pending adjudication before the Industrial Court.

Therefore, I do not find merit in the contention of the learned counsel for

Petitioner-Sugar Factory that, merely because the statutory preservation

period under the Factories Act, 1948, the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, and

the Payment of Bonus Act, 1965 has expired, the Court is precluded from

directing production of such records.

10. The non-preservation of registers for a prescribed period may attract

penal consequences under the respective statutes; however, such provisions

cannot operate as an impediment to the Court’s power to direct production of

records for the purpose of adjudication of disputes.

11. This takes me to the submission of the learned counsel for Petitioner-

Sugar Factory that, in the reply, it was stated that records from the year 2010

onwards are not traceable. Thus, it is not the case of Petitioner-Sugar Factory

that records for all the year have been destroyed. Moreover, the said reply is

not supported by an affidavit.

12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that there is no categorical

statement on record by Petitioner-Sugar Factory that the records are not

available. It is only stated that the records are “not traceable,” which does not

mean that they are not in possession of Petitioner-Sugar Factory. Thus, in the

absence of any positive assertion that the records are not available, I do not

Shubham 7
7-WP-15910-2022.doc

find any perversity in the order passed by the Industrial Court directing

production of the documents. Petitioner-Sugar Factory is, however, at liberty

to satisfy the Industrial Court regarding non-availability of records, if so

advised.

13. Needless to mention, the Industrial Court shall be at liberty to decide

the matter on its own merits in accordance with law, including the provisions

relating to production of documents under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

14. In view of the aforesaid observations, I find no merit in the Petitions.

Accordingly, all the Writ Petitions are dismissed.

15. The Industrial Court is directed to dispose of the proceedings as

expeditiously as possible.

[ M.W. CHANDWANI, J. ]

Digitally
signed by
TALLE
TALLE SHUBHAM
SHUBHAM ASHOKRAO
ASHOKRAO Date:
2026.04.29
18:54:01
+0530

Shubham 8

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…