JUDGMENT Jaspreet Singh, J. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1. None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2-company. 2. The record indicates that notices were issued to the private respondent no.2 by means of order dated 15.03.2023. As per office report dated 08.05.2023, notice on the private respondent was held to the sufficient but none has put in appearance, accordingly the Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 3. By means of the instant petition, the petitioner assails the order dated 24.08.2021 passed by Industrial Tribunal (II), Lucknow in Adjudication Case No.117 of 2007 (Manoj Kumar v. M/s Tata Engineering & Locomotive Co., Chinhat, Deva Road, Lucknow). 4. Submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that he has been working on the post of Operator in Production (Chassis Assembly) Department vide order dated 02.11.1994. The petitioner was also given a level promotion by the Manager (H.R.) vide order dated 31.01.1998 and was transferred to SQIG. He was later transferred from SQIG Department to CX-CWP Department. 5. It is the case of the petitioner that on 05.04.2005, he was issued a chargesheet wherein allegations were levelled against the petitioner that his work was below the requisite standards. The petitioner contested the proceedings and dismissal order was passed on 01.06.2006. The petitioner assailed the same by filing the petition under Section 2-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 registered as C. P. Case No.223 of 2006. Since the conciliation proceedings between the petitioner and his employer i.e. the private respondent no.2 failed, accordingly the matter was referred to Industrial Tribunal wherein it was registered as Adjudication Case No.117 of 2007. 6. During the course of proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, the petitioner had made an application seeking to summon certain documents from the employer which did not find favour with the Tribunal, as a consequence, the petitioner preferred writ petition before this Court bearing No.6247 (M/S) of 2012. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by means of order dated 03.12.2013 and the High Court modified order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the other documents demanded by the petitioner may be supplied to him. 7. The said writ petition came to be disposed of by means of order dated 03.12.2013 and the High Court modified order dated 12.09.2012 passed by the Tribunal to the extent that the other documents demanded by the petitioner may be supplied to him. 7. It is urged that despite the categoric order passed by the High Court yet the respondent no.2 did not provide the requisite documents as a result the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal (II) Lucknow on 10.02.2015 noticed that since the private respondent had defaulted and not provided the requisite documents to the petitioner, accordingly the petitioner was granted liberty to lead the secondary evidence and in the impugned order it was also observed that an adverse inference would be drawn against the private respondent no.2 for willfully suppressing evidence. 8. It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the petitioner moved another application to bring on record certain subsequent events and alongwith the said application, the petitioner attempted to introduce a magazine published by the private respondent no.2-company for its personal and internal consumption. The said magazine known as Tata Engineering Darpan was being published on yearly basis and it was a sort of a news letter indicating the various achievements accomplied by the company. 9. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since the petitioner was chargesheeted with the allegations that his performance in the production department for the year 2003 and 2004 was below the requisite standards, hence in order to rebut the same, he preferred to rely upon the said magazine and certain article published therein to indicate that CX CWP department had made record production. This was also the situation in the year 2004 and therefore it was expedient for the Tribunal to have permitted the petitioner to rely on the said magazine as it would help the petitioner to vindicate his stand. 10. Considering the said application preferred by the Tribunal by means of its order dated 24.08.2021 rejected the same on the ground that the said magazine sought to be introduced by the petitioner was only for internal consumption and any view published therein may not be treated as view of the company. 10. Considering the said application preferred by the Tribunal by means of its order dated 24.08.2021 rejected the same on the ground that the said magazine sought to be introduced by the petitioner was only for internal consumption and any view published therein may not be treated as view of the company. The Tribunal also noticed that in so far as certain other documents which the petitioner wanted to introduce the same were already on record, hence the application came to be rejected which is now under challenge before this Court. 11. The thrust of the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondent no.2 was behaving in a highhanded fashion and despite the order passed by the High Court yet the documents as called for by the petitioner was not granted. 12. Noticing the same, the Tribunal had also passed an order drawing is adverse inference and permitting the petitioner to lead secondary evidence and in furtherance of the said liberty granted, the petition wanted to introduce the said magazine. 13. At the outset, it may be noted that the magazine which is referred to by the petitioner is not a document which can be made binding on the institution i.e. the respondent no.2, as it is merely a magazine which is for internal circulation and there is already a disclaimer that the company does not subscribes to the view as expressed in the said magazine. 14. The core issue as to whether the petitioner's performance is below standard or not, for that there is no material in the said magazine. However, unless and until it can be shown that the magazine refers to certain accolade which may have been conferred upon the petitioner himself and may have been published in the magazine printed under the aegis of the respondent no.2. 15. Even considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and noticing the contents of the said magazine, all that can be seen is the fact that the department where the petitioner was specifically posted, it had achieved certain record productions. 15. Even considering the submissions made by the counsel for the petitioner and noticing the contents of the said magazine, all that can be seen is the fact that the department where the petitioner was specifically posted, it had achieved certain record productions. Merely because certain record productions have been achieved by the department, it does not infer that the same is on account of the efficiency of the petitioner alone nor it can be seen to notice that in case if there is any deficiency, the same can be attributed to the petitioner solely. 16. It is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that there are about 50 persons working in the department and in case if any achievement has been reached by the department concerned, this in itself, ipso facto, does not prove the fact regarding the efficiency of the petitioner. It is in view of the aforesaid that this Court does not find that there is any error in the order passed by the Industrial Tribunal. Since there is already an order passed by the Industrial Tribunal permitting the petitioner to lead the secondary evidence and in case if something cogent is filed. Needless to say that the same shall be considered by the Tribunal and the issue regarding adverse inference is also in the discretion and domain of the Industrial Tribunal for which no observation is required to be made by this Court especially when only a limited order is under challenge here. 17. However, it is further noticed that the adjudication case is pending before the respondent no.1 since 2007, accordingly the same is expedited and the Tribunal shall ensure that after affording full opportunity of hearing to the parties but without granting any unnecessary adjournments shall endeavour to decide the entire controversy preferably within a period of four months, from the date a copy of this order is placed before the Tribunal concerned. 18. For the forgoing reasons, this Court does not deem appropriate to interfere in the impugned order dated 24.08.2021. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed. Costs are made easy.