Civil Revision No. 5948 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 5948 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 10.5.2010 Ashok Kumar Gehlot .. Petitioner v. M/s Maruti Udyog Limited now Maruti Suzuki Ltd., Gurgaon. .. Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH BINDAL Present: Mr. A. K. Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal and Mr. Aseem Aggarwal, Advocates for the respondent. .. Rajesh Bindal J. Challenge in the present petition is to the order dated 6.10.2009, passed by Labour Court-I, Gurgaon , whereby the application filed by the petitioner for leading additional evidence to produce on record order dated 21.8.2009, passed by this Court in R.S.A. No.840 of 2007, was rejected. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order in question came in existence after the closure of evidence of the petitioner before the Labour Court and the same being relevant, he only seeks permission to produce that. On a query by the court, as to what is the relevance of the order, the submission was that the petitioner was dismissed from service on account of some alleged irregularities committed in the House Building Society. On that account, an enquiry was conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner. The findings of that enquiry were challenged in a civil suit filed by the petitioner. R.S.A. No. 840 of 2007 arises out of those proceedings. FIR was also registered for the alleged offence committed by the petitioner and others, in which the trial is going on. The order of this court is sought to be produced before the Labour Court to impress upon that the enquiry conducted by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, should not be taken into consideration. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, I do not find any merit in the submissions made. In the order dated 21.8.2009, passed by this Court in RSA No. 840 of 2007, admitting the appeal, there is no interim direction given regarding consideration or non-consideration of the enquiry report in the Civil Revision No. 5948 of 2009 [2] proceedings pending before the Labour Court, whereas a specific direction has been given for its non-consideration by the court in the criminal case pending against the petitioner. In view of this fact, I do not find any illegality has been committed by the Labour Court in rejecting the application for leading additional evidence. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed. (Rajesh Bindal) Judge 10.5.2010 mk