Civil Revision No. 1290 of 2010(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 1290 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision: February 25 , 2010 Sohanbir Singh ...... Petitioner Versus M/s Maruti Udyog Limited ...... Respondent Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ajay Tewari Present: Mr.Ashok Tyagi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Ajay Tewari, J. This petition has been filed against an order declining permission to the petitioner to file and place on record copy of order dated 21.08.2009 passed by this Court in RSA No. 840 of 2007. The ground taken is that the matter is old and that the same has been repeatedly adjourned for arguments since 26.02.2008. Another reason taken is that the relevancy of the order which has to be placed on record has not been mentioned in the application therefor. As regards the first ground though it may be true that the case has been repeatedly adjourned since 26.02.2008 yet the order which is now sought to be placed on record came into existence only on 21.08.2009. As regards the relevancy, a perusal of the application filed by the petitioner Civil Revision No. 1290 of 2010(O&M) 2 shows that in paras 4 and 5 he has given what he perceives to be the relevance of the order to the case in hand. In my opinion by perusing the same it cannot be said at this stage that the documents sought to be produced shall be entirely relevant. Of course its value would be assessed by the learned Labour Court along with the other factors. No prejudice would be caused to the respondents in case this document is allowed to be placed on record. In the circumstances learned trial Court is directed to permit the petitioner to place on record a copy of the order dated 21.08.2009. If necessary one opportunity be granted to respondents to produce any evidence eon the next date in rebuttal. This would, however, be subject to costs of Rs.2500/- which would have to be tendered by the petitioner in favour of the respondents on the date fixed. With the aforesaid observations the revision stands disposed of. Since the main case has been decided, the pending Civil Misc. Applications, if any, stand disposed of. A copy of this order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges. (AJAY TEWARI) JUDGE February 25, 2010 sunita