JUDGMENT

Arijit Pasayat, J. — Leave granted.

2. Appellants call in question legality of the judgment rendered by a learned Single Judge of the Uttaranchal High Court. By the impugned judgment, the learned Single Judge set aside the order of termination passed by appellant No.2 and directed re-instatement of the respondent in service with continuity of service, but without back wages.

3. Factual background needs to be noted in brief.

The respondent was appointed as Driver in appellant No.1-U.P. State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation). On 10.10.1990 while the respondent was plying the bus No.UGA 938 on Mussoorie road, all of a sudden the vehicle met with an accident and fell into a ditch. Thereafter, a disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the respondent in which the charges against the respondent were found proved and the appellant vide its order dated 31.3.1993 dismissed the respondent from service. Thereafter, the respondent filed an appeal before appellant No.2, which was rejected on 30.6.1993. Thereafter, the respondent raised an industrial dispute under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short the Act). The industrial dispute decided by the award was referred in the following terms:-

"Whether the termination of the services of applicant/workman Sri Mansaram Nainwal s/o Visheshware Dutt Nainwal, driver by the employers from 31.3.1993 is unjustified and/or illegal? If so, to which benefit/compensation the applicant/workman is entitled and to what extent?"

4. The Labour Court issued notice to the parties. The appellants and the respondent filed their written statement/objection. The stand of appellants before the Labour Court was that the respondent was appointed as a Driver. On 10.10.1990 when he was plying the bus No. UGA 938 on Dehradun-Mussoorie Road, due to his rash and negligent driving, the bus fell into the ditch in which 12 persons died and some other persons got seriously injured and the bus was also got damaged as a result of which the Corporation suffered a huge loss of Rs.2,50,000/-. It was also pleaded that the respondent was charge sheeted and a departmental enquiry was held against him in which full opportunity of hearing was provided to the respondent. In the enquiry, the charges against the respondent were found proved and he was removed from the service.

5. On the other hand, the respondent in his written statement accepted that he was served charge sheet and a departmental enquiry was also held against him. But he pleaded that the necessary documents were not being produced though demand was made several times. The Investigating Officer found him not guilty in the enquiry, even though he was dismissed from service.

6. Labour Court found the respondent guilty and held that the termination was not unjustified.

7. Challenging the order of Labour Court, the respondent filed a Writ Petition which, as noted above, was allowed by the impugned judgment. The foundation of the High Courts judgment was to the effect that in the criminal trial the respondent was acquitted and placing reliance on a decision of this Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony v. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr. (1999 (3) SCC 679) the order of termination was set aside.

8. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the ratio in Anthonys case (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. It has not even been indicated as to how the factual position is similar. In any event, acquittal in a criminal case does not lead to an automatic re-instatement and also does not render the departmental proceedings invalid. It was, therefore, submitted that the High Court was clearly wrong in its conclusion.

9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the departmental authorities in the enquiry conducted against the respondent had clearly found that he was not responsible for the accident and there was no misconduct involved.

10. T