Judgment A. P. MISRA, J. ( 1 ) LEAVE granted. ( 2 ) HEARD learned counsel for the appellant. ( 3 ) THE main question for decision is, whether the termination order passed by the respondent-Corporation as against the appellant was valid or not. The Labour Court upheld the appellants claim but its order was set aside by the Industrial Court which was upheld by the High Court and review was also dismissed. Before this Court, the question raised was, whether the termination order is illegal as he was appointed on a clear vacancy after passing the requisite test, hence, termination without assigning any reason or finding unsatisfactory work is not valid. On the other hand the case of the respondent- corporation is, his appointment was not made on a clear vacancy but only as a daily-wager is also recorded in the counter-affidavit. ( 4 ) EARLIER, the appellant filed a document in this Court, alleging it to be his appointment letter dated September 20, 1980 which records that his appointment was on the post of driver as against a vacant post to which he has been selected by the Divisional Selection committee. This document has been disputed seriously on behalf of the respondent. In para 1 of the counter-affidavit it is averred that the appellant is guilty of gross misrepresentation of facts by filing this document for the first time in this Court, which was never filed, or exhibited at the trial and he never entered in the witness box to assert it to be so. It is also submitted, as averred, that the appellant never made such submission before the High Court. This Court on July 28, 2000 granted time to the appellant for filing reply to this counter-affidavit. But no reply was filed. When the matter was again taken up on November 8, 2000, learned counsel for the appellant again sought further four weeks time, which was granted yet no reply was filed. In fact, when this matter is again taken up today, still we find that no reply is filed in spite of the long time 5 being granted. In view of this fact, the averment made in the said counter- affidavit is accepted to be correct. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, we examined this matter from another angle, notwithstanding the said averment made in the counter-affidavit. In view of this fact, the averment made in the said counter- affidavit is accepted to be correct. ( 5 ) HOWEVER, we examined this matter from another angle, notwithstanding the said averment made in the counter-affidavit. ( 6 ) THE question which is sought to be raised is that his appointment was on a clear vacancy after due selection. If that be so, then this document must form part of the record also must surface in any of the orders passed either by the Labour Court, Industrial Court or by the high Court. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point, whether this question has ever been raised in any of the Courts. In the absence of such question being raised it cannot be permitted to be raised for the first time here, especially when the authenticity of this document is challenged. Even otherwise, no useful purpose would be served in going into this question, based on a document which has not been proved to have been either filed or exhibited. Accordingly, the submission made on behalf of the appellant bears no merits. ( 7 ) APART from this, when we examined the impugned orders passed by the Industrial Court as confirmed by the High Court, we do not find any error which calls for interference by us in the present proceedings under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. In view of the above, the present appeal fails and is accordingly, dismissed. Costs on the parties.