( 1 ) THIS writ petition is filed by the Management aggrieved by the Award dated 3-7-1995 in ID No. 256 of 1992 on the file of the Labour Court-II, Hyderabad, wherein the 2nd respondent workman was directed to be reinstated with continuity of service and attendant benefits, but without any back wages.

( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner- management that it is a public sector undertaking and the 2nd respondent was working as a Security Guard to ensure the safety and security of the property as well as the personnel of the company. While so. on the night of 29-7-1981, the 2nd respondent along with M. Sharanappa and G. Babaiah, senior Security Guards boarded the third shift incoming bus (Route No. 2) at the main check post around 10. 00 p. m. , and alighted at j gate of the factory. At that time, one PGV Naidu, Foreman also alighted from the bus along with his wife Smt. P. V. Shanta Kumari. While PGV Naidu had gone towards cycle shed, the 2nd respondent assaulted his wife Smt. Shanta Kumari, closed her mouth with his hands and sought to snatch away her gold chain from her neck. When she raised cries for help due to her modesty being outraged PGV Naidu turned and rushed towards the 2nd respondent. On seeing this, the 2nd respondent ran away, but was caught by naidu. At that time, G. Babaiah and M. Sharanappa, Senior Security Guards colluded with the 2nd respondent and led away PGV Naidu towards T Gate of the factory telling him to leave the 2nd respondent as he would be taken later to the Duty Officer by them for making a complaint. This misconduct was enquired into and ultimately the 2nd respondent was dismissed from service. However, since a dispute in I. D. No. 23 of 1981 was pending before the Industrial Tribunal, Hyderabad, the petitioner-management filed an application being MP No. 88 of 1982 under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes, Act, 1947 (for brevity the Act ) seeking approval of the dismissal order dated 8-5-1982. The tribunal, having regard to the rival contentions and after perusal of the enquiry proceedings and report, passed an Order on 6-8-1983 holding that the enquiry was properly conducted and that there was no violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, by an order dated 19-8-1983 the Tribunal granted approval of the dismissal order passed against the 2nd respondent Aggrieved by the same, the 2nd respondent approached this Court by way of W. P. No. 10903 of 1983, which was dismissed on 20-11-1987 holding that the domestic enquiry conducted was fair and proper. This judgment was carried in appeal being Writ Appeal No. 1751 of 1988, which was also dismissed on 23-1-1989 holding as under:"we agree with the learned Single Judge. This is not a fit case for interfering with the order of the Tribunal giving approval to the dismissal of writ petitioner by the management The proper remedy for the writ petitioner, if he is aggrieved, is to raise an Industrial Dispute, for the approval has been granted on correct principles. The writ appeal is consequently dismissed. "however, since this Court in the above writ appeal has held mat the remedy for the workman, if he is aggrieved, is to raise an industrial dispute, the 2nd respondent raised a dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Act before the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Additional labour Court, Hyderabad in ID No. 86 of 1989. The Tribunal, according to the petitioner-management, had again took up the issue of the validity of the domestic enquiry and gave a finding that the domestic enquiry was not properly conducted and is vitiated by an Order dated 22-6-1995. Since the management has not adduced any evidence, the Tribunal took up the matter for final decision and gave a finding that the enquiry itself was not property conducted and the charge against the workman were not proved. Apart from the fact that the charges were also not proved in the criminal case and in the absence of any material, the workman is entitled for reinstatement