JUDGMENT 1. - Instant petition has been filed by the petitioner-Corporation assailing the order dated 12.02.2008 passed by Industrial Tribunal disposing of the application filed by the petitioner-Corporation u/S.33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act,1947. 2. From the material which has come on record it appears that respondent Zalam Singh (deceased) who was working as Driver, disciplinary enquiry was initiated against him and charge-sheet was served on 22.06.1996 in which he was held guilty and punished vide order dated 05.12.1996 (Annx.1) but because of pending industrial dispute application was filed by the Corporation seeking approval of punishment inflicted upon workman of removal from service before the Industrial Tribunal u/S.33(2)(b) of the Act,1947. The learned Tribunal after hearing the parties on the fairness of the domestic enquiry arrived at the conclusion that the domestic enquiry was not fair but at the same time it was further observed that in the ordinary course permission should have been granted to lead evidence but since workman died during pendency of proceedings permission prayed for to lead evidence could not now be granted to the parties, taking note thereof, the application filed by the Corporation seeking permission was rejected vide order impugned dated 12.02.2008. 3. Counsel for petitioner submits that domestic enquiry was not found to be fair but their right to lead evidence before the Industrial Tribunal has been defeated only on the premise that workman died during pendency of proceedings and in such circumstances the order impugned dated 12.02.2008 cannot be held to be justified. 4. Counsel for respondent on the other hand relied upon the judgment of this Court in Smt. Prem Kumari and others v. Central Industrial Tribunal and others [1995 (70) FLR 244 ] in which it has been held that where the Tribunal found termination of the service of the workman based on unfair domestic enquiry and the workman died during pendency of reference, the employer thereafter cannot be granted permission to prove charge against workman and it has also been examined in CWP-11227/2009 decided on 09.10.2009 and contention advanced was rejected by this Court, taking assistance of the judgment (supra), counsel for respondent submits that on account of death of workman during pendency of the application permission cannot now be granted and in such circumstances no error has been committed by the Tribunal while rejecting the application filed by the Corporation under the order impugned. 5. 5. The Court in the judgment in Smt. Prem Kumari's case (supra) observed as under:- "It had already been held earlier by the Tribunal that the equiry held by the employer was unfair, the appellant could not seek to prove the charges after the death of the concerned workman. No charge can be proved on the basis of the evidence tendered after the death of the charge-sheeted workman. Argument of Shri Agrawal is that the charge could be proved even after the death of the concerned workman, by tendering evidence with reference to the contemporaneous record as the charge was only of not giving the prescribed standard of work. We do not agree with this argument for the simple reason that only the deceased workman could confront the employer with the circumstances in which the prescribed standard of work could not be given and no effective cross examination on this aspect of the matter could be done by the legal representatives, i.e., the widow of the deceased workman and his sons. Only the deceased workman could confront the witnesses of the employer with such circumstances in which it may not have been possible for him to give the prescribed standard of work. Therefore, to say that the work put in by the concerned employee workman was on record and the requisite standard of work had been prescribed and therefore the charge could be proved even against a dead person without causing any prejudice to him, is wholly misconceived, rather ill-conceived." 6. In the light of judgment (supra), the submission made by counsel for petitioner does not hold good and the instant petition deserves to be dismissed. 7. Consequently, the petition, being devoid of any substance, is hereby dismissed.Petition dismissed. *******