ORDER

1. This petition is under Article 227 of the Constitution of India questioning the validity of the order dated 28.5.2019 (Annexure P/5) whereby the Presiding Officer, Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) Jabalpur has allowed the respondent/management to prove the charge of misconduct by leading evidence even after the death of the workman during pendency of proceeding before the CGIT.

2. Although, the objection was raised by the claimants/workman side that after the death of workman misconduct cannot be proved and no permission to lead evidence can be granted to the management. The claimants therefore, refused to cross-examine the witnesses produced by the management because, according to them in view of the circular issued by the Central Government, the misconduct cannot be proved after the death of workman. The circular dated 20.10.1999 provides that the disciplinary proceeding, to prove the misconduct after the death of workman, should be closed.

3. Finally the CGIT closed the right of the claimants to cross examine the witnesses produced by the management. Thus, this order is under challenge by filing this petition saying that the Tribunal should not have allowed the management to produce the evidence or to prove the misconduct by leading evidence under the existing circumstances.

4. The challenge is made mainly on the ground that once the order was passed by the Tribunal on 12.12.2012 restraining the management to produce the evidence and closed their right to lead the evidence, the said order cannot be reviewed in the same proceeding further and any order permitting management to lead the evidence cannot be passed by the same authority. The petitioners have also prayed that the enquiry must be closed after the death of workman against whom charge of misconduct is levelled by the management.

5. Shri Nair counsel for the respondent has opposed the submission and submitted that this petition is not maintainable because the Supreme Court in number of cases has observed that against the interim order in a pending proceeding before the CGIT, the writ petition is not maintainable. He further submits that the Supreme Court has also observed that after the death of workman proceedings are not abated and therefore whatever right exists with the workman when he is alive, the same right would be continued even after his death. Leading evidence and permitting the management to lead the evidence and the order passed in that regard cannot be said to be illegal. He further submits that sub-section (8) of section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (For short ‘Act, 1947’) postulates that the proceedings would be continued even after the death of workman. Shri Nair further submits that the order dated 12.12.2012 has been passed by the CGIT because in the written statement of the management they did not claim for leading the evidence and as such that right was refused and opportunity was not granted to the respondent-management to lead the evidence.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that during the course of proceedings they also moved an application for closing the enquiry due to the death of the workman and they placed an order passed in the case of Mangal Prasad vs. OFK Jabalpur. However, Shri Nair submits that the said order has no application because that order was passed in a different proceeding in which Central Government was the management-respondent and they govern by the circular issued by the Central Government whereas the circular issued by the Central Government and the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1965 (for brevity “Rules, 1965”). are not applicable upon the present respondents i.e. SECL.

7. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusal of record of the case, the core question emerges to be adjudicated as to whether the departmental enquiry facing by the employee for a charge of misconduct can be continued after his death.

8. Learned counsel