1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR LPA NO. 273 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1139 OF 2009 (WCL through Chief General Manager vs. The Workmen represented by Lalzanda Coal Mines & Anr.) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : B.P. DHARMADHIKARI & F.M. REIS, JJ. AUGUST 07, 2009. Heard finally with the consent of Shri M. Anilkumar, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for the respondents. The challenge is to the judgment of learned Single Judge rejecting the petition of present appellant, permitting them to file an application so as to seek orders of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal (CGIT) to lead evidence to prove the misconduct. Shri Anil Kumar, learned counsel states that actually affidavit evidence of concerned witness was already filed and later on it was pointed out that previous permission of CGIT was not taken. In view of the earlier orders passed by the CGIT, he states that when that application was moved, it was rejected. He points out that only three adjournments were taken and the employee was charged with misconduct of theft. He contends that in these circumstances, considering the facts that the appellant is a public sector undertaking, 2 the impugned orders are going to cause serious prejudice and result in reinstatement of a person who has been charged with grave and serious misconduct. Shri Mardikar, learned counsel for respondent No.1 is opposing the prayers. But after sometime, he has stated that if adequate compensation is given to the respondent, the respondent has no objection if the application moved by the appellant is allowed and their affidavit evidence is taken on record. It is contended that the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India vs. Mohd. Ramzan Khan, reported at AIR 1991 SC 471, is not applicable as there was earlier a writ petition before this Court but that was withdrawn and the appellant undertook to prove misconduct before the CGIT. In these circumstances, we permit the appellant to prove misconduct by setting aside the impugned orders and by directing CGIT to accept the affidavit evidence tendered by the appellant on record but same shall be subject to payment of cost of Rs. 15,000/- by the present appellant to respondent No.1 within a period of four weeks from today. If the costs are so paid before the CGIT, the impugned order shall stand quashed and set aside and the affidavit tendered by the appellant shall be read into evidence. The respondent then shall be given an opportunity to cross examine said witness in accordance with law. The matter shall thereafter proceed further in accordance 3 with law. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal shall endeavour to decide the reference as early as possible and in any case by 31st July 2010. Letters Patent Appeal is disposed of accordingly. JUDGE JUDGE *GS.