JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. 1. The instant petition is directed against the impugned order of the learned Commissioner rendered under the Workmen’s Compensation Act (SDM), Rampur Bushahr, District Shimla, (hereinafter referred to as the Commissioner) whereby he declined to award compensation to the applicant/appellant for his sustaining injuries during the course of his performing employment under his employer. Even though there is no period of limitation prescribed in the Workmen Compensation Act within which the aggrieved workman is enjoined to file a petition for compensation for injuries sustained by him during the course of his performing employment under his employer, yet the applicant/appellant herein was enjoined to adduce cogent evidence displaying the factum of his at the relevant time performing employment under his employer. The learned Commissioner had placed reliance upon the muster roll pertaining to the relevant day of the year of 1989 whereat given the applicant/appellant standing recorded to be absent, it concluded therefrom of the injuries, if any, sustained by the applicant standing not gained on his person during the course of his rendering employment under the respondents. The reliance as placed by the Commissioner upon the photo copy of the muster roll with portrayals therein of the applicant/ appellant standing on the apposite day reflected to be absent appears to be inapt given the echoings occurring in the deposition of Durga Dass, of the person holding its original handing it to Maldev and Devi Singh for enabling them to prepare a photocopy therefrom who after preparing a photocopy from its original returning the latter to its custodian one Chuni Lal. However, both the aforesaid Mal Dev and Devi Singh wheretowhom Chuni Lal the custodian of the original purveyed the original of the muster roll for facilitating the preparation of a photocopy therefrom remained unexamined for gaining a conclusion of its photo exhibits standing prepared from its original. Since both remained unexamined also with the respondents not producing the original of muster roll for hence theirs proving the photocopy of the relevant muster roll as stood adduced by the respondents whereas it constituted the best evidence sequels an inference of the learned Commissioner placing an inapt reliance on an unproven photocopy of the relevant muster roll. Since both remained unexamined also with the respondents not producing the original of muster roll for hence theirs proving the photocopy of the relevant muster roll as stood adduced by the respondents whereas it constituted the best evidence sequels an inference of the learned Commissioner placing an inapt reliance on an unproven photocopy of the relevant muster roll. Also the respondents could well have moved an appropriate application before the learned Commissioner for adducing as secondary evidence a photocopy of the original relevant muster roll with apposite averments embedded therein qua its adduction being imperative, the original being lost or destroyed for hence securing an apposite order thereon whereupon reliance upon the photocopy of the muster roll was warrantable. However, in the respondents omitting to move an appropriate application therebefore seeking leave to produce as secondary evidence a photocopy of the original of muster roll nor also the learned Commissioner passing an apposite order thereon renders the photocopy of the relevant muster roll to hold no probative vigour also it was legally inapt for the learned Commissioner to place reliance thereupon preponderantly its standing not obviously proven in accordance with the law. Contrarily when the unrebutted oral evidence stood adduced comprised in the deposition of coworkers of the applicant/appellant with echoings occurring therein of the applicant/appellant on the relevant day attaining the relevant injuries on his person during the course of his rendering employment under the respondents/employer, enjoined the learned Commissioner to impute credence thereupon. However, dis-imputation of credence by him to the oral testimonies of co-workers alongwith the applicant merits interference by this Court. In sequel, the findings recorded by the learned Commissioner qua the applicant/appellant not on the relevant day performing employment under the respondents warrants interference. 2. Be that as it may even if this Court concludes of the appellant/applicant on the relevant day performing employment under the respondents would not ipso facto beget any inference qua his as pronounced by oral evidence suffering an amputation of the left hand thumb. The best evidence qua the aforesaid existed in the prescription slip. However, Ext.PW-3/A is a photocopy, in sequel reliance thereupon is inapt, it standing not proven in accordance with law also the doctor who issued it remained unexamined besides no pronouncement occurs therein of the applicant suffering amputation of his left thumb. The best evidence qua the aforesaid existed in the prescription slip. However, Ext.PW-3/A is a photocopy, in sequel reliance thereupon is inapt, it standing not proven in accordance with law also the doctor who issued it remained unexamined besides no pronouncement occurs therein of the applicant suffering amputation of his left thumb. Consequently, the efficacy of oral testimonies holding therein communications of the applicant appellant suffering amputation of his left thumb during the course of his performing employment under his employer, stand belittled. Furthermore the disability certificate Ext.PW-1/A prepared in the year 1996 hence with its preparation standing remotely distanced vis-a-vis. the purported ill-fated occurrence of 27.09.1989 obviously it cannot be concluded to be holding reflections qua the disability occurring therein holding any communication qua its standing attained in sequel to injuries suffered by the workman during the course of his performing employment under his employer. I find no merit in the appeal, which is accordingly dismissed. No costs.