Civil Revision No.4781 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision:-10.8.2010 Ram Lok Singh son of Labhu Ram ...Petitioner Versus Punjab School Education Board, Mohali ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present:- Mr.Gurinder Singh Punia, Advocate for the petitioner. M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J . (Oral) The matrix of facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of present petition and emanating from the record, is that the services of petitioner Ram Lok Singh-workman were terminated by the Management. He has challenged his termination order. In the wake of reference, the matter was referred to the Labour Court by the appropriate Government. During the pendency of the proceedings, the Management moved an application (Annexure P2) for permission to lead secondary evidence on the ground that the original inquiry file has been lost as the same was stolen by the workman himself. He also tried to set on fire, the other record, including the inquiry file. The incident of theft and fire was reported to the police. As the original inquiry file/record has been lost/stolen, therefore, the Management sought permission to prove the record relating to the inquiry of workman by adducing secondary evidence. 2. The workman contested the prayer of the Management and filed the reply (Annexure P3), inter-alia, denying all the allegations contained in the application for leading secondary evidence and prayed for its dismissal. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court accepted the application of the Management (Annexure P2) by virtue of impugned order dated 25.3.2010 (Annexure P1). Civil Revision No.4781 of 2010 2 3. The petitioner-Workman did not feel satisfied with the impugned order (Annexure P1) and filed the present petition. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner, after going through the record with his valuable assistance and considering the matter deeply, to my mind, there is no merit in the revision petition. 5. As is evident from the record that the Management claimed that the inquiry file has been lost/stolen by the Workman and the matter was reported to the police in this regard. Once the original record has been destroyed or lost, then, to me, the Labour Court has recorded the valid reasons and rightly allowed the Management to prove the inquiry proceedings by way of secondary evidence, vide impugned order (Annexure P1). 6. In this view of the matter, no injustice has been caused to the petitioner, muchless manifest injustice, which would occasion to interfere in the impugned order. Such order cannot possibly be set aside by this Court while exercising the limited revisional jurisdiction as contemplated under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, unless and until, the same is perverse and illegal. No such patent illegality or legal infirmity has been pointed out by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the impugned order. 7. No other legal point, worth consideration, has either been urged or pressed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 8. In the light of the aforementioned reasons, as there is no merit, therefore, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed, in the obtaining circumstances of the case. (Mehinder Singh Sullar) 10.8.2010 Judge AS