Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the Management) has assailed the award dated 18. 2. 2002 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court, Jabalpur (in short the CGIT) whereby the respondent No. 1 has been directed to be reinstated with back wages and other consequential benefits attaching to his post. The CGIT further directed that workman would be deemed to be in continuous service from the date of compulsory retirement till the date of his reinstatement. ( 2. ) AS per the case of the Management, the workman while serving as Supervisor in the Gun Carriage Factory claimed a false LTC for himself and his wife whereas, in fact, he was not married on the date of preferring the claim. The departmental enquiry was conducted and on the basis of the said enquiry the disciplinary authority imposed punishment of termination vide order dated 9. 3. 1987. workman preferred a departmental appeal and the order of punishment of termination from service has been modified to the compulsory retirement by the appellate authority vide its order dated 21. 1. 1988. ( 3. ) THE workman assailing the order of his compulsory retirement raised an industrial dispute and the matter was referred to the CGIT for adjudication. The respective parties submitted their statement of claims. The workman in his statement of claim challenged the departmental proceedings on several grounds. The Management in its statement of claim denied the averments made by the workman in his statement of claim. The CGIT framed issues in regard to the validity of the departmental enquiry and also regarding proving of misconduct and the punishment inflicted to workman. ( 4. ) THE CGIT vide its award dated 18. 2. 2002 held that the enquiry conducted against workman was fair arid proper and no illegality found in the enquiry proceedings and workman has also not disputed the validity of the inquiry. The CGIT, after holding the departmental enquiry to be just and proper, held that no misconduct has been proved because some documents were not produced during the course of departmental enquiry and also before the CGIT. ( 5. The CGIT, after holding the departmental enquiry to be just and proper, held that no misconduct has been proved because some documents were not produced during the course of departmental enquiry and also before the CGIT. ( 5. ) SHRI Brian da Silva, learned senior counsel for the Management by inviting my attention to the award of the CGIT has submitted that while deciding issues No. 1 and 2 it has been categorically held by CGIT that the workman has not disputed the validity of the departmental enquiry during the course of his argument and therefore the CGIT held that the departmental enquiry was conducted in accordance with law and it was just and proper and it was so held by the CGIT vide its order dated 12. 12. 2001. The contention of learned senior counsel is that once having reached to the conclusion that the departmental enquiry was just and proper the CGIT ought not to have interfered in the impugned order passed by the Management retiring the petitioner compulsorily on account of misconduct. By inviting my attention to proviso to Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act) it has been argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the order-under this section could be passed only on the material available on record and the CGIT was not having any jurisdiction to take any fresh evidence in relation to the matter. By placing reliance on South Bengal State Transport Corporation v. Sapan Kumar Mitra and Ors. AIR2006 SC 3533 , (SCSuppl ) 2006 (3 )CHN104 , JT2006 (2 )SC 307 , (2006 )I LLJ1087 SC , 2006 (2 ) SCALE141 , (2006 )2 SCC584 , 2006 (2 )SLJ411 (SC ), it has been argued by learned senior counsel for the petitioner that the strict law of evidence is not applicable in the disciplinary proceedings and even if the zerox copy of some document is filed, the same can be taken into consideration. By inviting my attention to para 7 of the award of the CGIT, it has been held that on account of non-filing of original application submitted by the workman to avail the LTC facility, the CGIT has drawn an adverse inference and has further held that that document (application submitted to avail the LTC facility) would be the primary evidence and therefore on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court Sapan Kumar Mitra (supra) the award of the CGIT cannot be allowed to remain stand. ( 6. ) ON the other hand, Shri R. N. Shukla, learned senior counsel appearing for the workman argued in support of the impugned award and has submitted that on account of holding the post in the Union by the workman the General Manager of the Management, to malign the character/image of the workman framed charge sheet of the alleged LTC claim of 1973-74. The charge sheet was issued after lapse of 9 years some where in the year 1982. The inquiry started in the year 1985-86. The sole motive of the General Manager was to malign the character of the petitioner so that he may not support his co-workers and therefore a false story of claiming LTC for self and wife, as in fact, he was not married, was thrusted. A specific objection has been taken in the return as well as in the statement of claim and also during the departmental enquiry by the workman that original application of his LTC claim be produced before departmental enquiry or CGIT. The Management accepted in the affidavit filed on 9. 8. 2002 as per directions dated 25. 7. 2002 of this Court that the original document of LTC application is not with the Management. It has also been putforth by learned senior counsel for the responded that the CGIT in its award held that the management has neither produced the original bill of LTC claim submitted by the workman nor proved before it. The contention of learned senior counsel for respondent is that on the basis of the assessment of evidence on record, it has been held by the CGIT that the punishment order of compulsory retirement of the workman is illegal and unjust and hence it was rightly quashed and the workman was rightly directed to be reinstated with back wages. The contention of learned senior counsel for respondent is that on the basis of the assessment of evidence on record, it has been held by the CGIT that the punishment order of compulsory retirement of the workman is illegal and unjust and hence it was rightly quashed and the workman was rightly directed to be reinstated with back wages. It has been further contended by Shri Shukla, learned senior counsel that in fact the petitioner availed the LTC facility for himself and for his mother as she was dependent on him. ( 7. ) IT has been further argued by learned senior counsel for the respondent that it was within the jurisdiction of the CGIT under the Act to interfere with the findings of the departmental enquiry on the ground of perversity, no evidence or lack of sufficient evidence. By placing reliance on the decision of Supreme Court Workman of Firestone Tyre and Rubber Co. v. Management AIR1973 SC 1227 , [1973 (26 )FLR359 ], (1973 )I LLJ278 SC , (1973 )1 SCC813 , [1973 ]3 SCR587 it has been argued that the CGIT is equipped with the powers to reappraise the evidence in domestic enquiry and satisfy itself whether the said evidence filed by the Management establishes the misconduct alleged against the workman. The contention of learned Counsel is that this petition sans substance and the same be dismissed. ( 8. ) HAVING heard learned Counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this petition deserves to be allowed and the matter is required to be sent back to CGIT. ( 9. ) BEFORE dealing with the rival contentions of learned Counsel for the parties, it would be appropriate to mention that vide order dated 25. 7. 2002 this Court directed the Management (petitioner) to file affidavit to the effect that LTC bill and the original application of workman were filed before the enquiry officer. ( 10. ) IN compliance to the order of this Court. M. Sivakumar, Works Manager (Admin.) of Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur filed affidavit that the original documents were taken by the CBI for investigation and those documents have not been returned in original. The Management is only having a copy of the same. ( 11. ( 10. ) IN compliance to the order of this Court. M. Sivakumar, Works Manager (Admin.) of Gun Carriage Factory, Jabalpur filed affidavit that the original documents were taken by the CBI for investigation and those documents have not been returned in original. The Management is only having a copy of the same. ( 11. ) THE CGIT on perusal of the record of the departmental enquiry found that the Management did not produce the original application either before the enquiry officer or before the CGIT to prove their allegations of misconduct against the workman. Before CGIT also the workman made demand to produce the said document but the same was never produced by the Management. True strict law of evidence is not applicable in the departmental enquiry proceedings but it is equally true that if a particular document on the basis of which the fate of a case or departmental enquiry could have been decided, in all fairness that document ought to have been presented in the departmental enquiry. On bare perusal of the affidavit of M. Sivakumar filed before this Court on 9. 8. 2002 it is perceptible that these documents were submitted to the CBI for investigation and they have not been returned back in original. There is nothing on record that on which date these documents were given to the CBI officer and on which date the demand to return them was made. There is nothing on record in order to show that any application was submitted by the Management asking CBI to return those documents. Similarly, there is nothing on record in order to show whether any statement was made on behalf of the Management before the CGIT as original documents have been handed over to CBI for investigation. There is also nothing on record that what CBI has done after obtaining the documents. But, on going through Annexure P/3 which is the enquiry report, it is gathered that the other evidence was also produced in order to prove the charge and that has been discussed by the enquiry officer in its report Annexure P/3. ( 12. ) THE report of the enquiry officer Annexure P/3 was before CGIT also, because the record of the departmental enquiry was produced before it. ( 12. ) THE report of the enquiry officer Annexure P/3 was before CGIT also, because the record of the departmental enquiry was produced before it. The CGIT only on the basis of non-furnishing of the original application of workman availing the LTC facility and the bills, held the charges are not proved. As a matter of fact, the other evidence which was produced in the departmental enquiry and which is also reflected from the enquiry report Annexure P/3 ought to have been considered and then any finding ought to have been given in regard to passing of order under Section 11-A of the Act. Since the other evidence has not at all been considered by the CGIT, I am of the view that the award passed by the CGIT cannot be allowed to remain stand and the same is hereby quashed and the matter is sent back to the CGIT to pass a fresh award. If on scanning the other material available on record in the departmental enquiry file and on the basis of that material CGIT is able to decide the issues, necessary award in that regard may be passed. The CGIT is free to direct the Management to produce original documents which were handed over to CBI and the Management may do the needful in that regard. ( 13. ) IT is however made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merit of the case. The CGIT shall be absolutely free to take an independent decision. ( 14. ) FOR the reasons stated hereinabove the award of the CGIT Annexure P/4 dated 18. 2. 2002 is hereby quashed by giving direction to CGIT to re-decide the matter afresh in the light of the decision passed by this Court after hearing the parties. ( 15. ) THIS petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove with no order as to costs.