( 1 ) W. P. NO. 8951 of 1995 is filed by m/s. Hindustan Cables Limited, represented by its Chief General Manager, Hyderabad against the Award, dated 07-12-1994, in i. D. No. 414of 1993 of the Additional Industrial tribunal-cum Additional Labour Court, hyderabad.

( 2 ) W. P. NO. 26587 of 1995 is filed by the workman challenging the same Award in i. D. No. 414of 1993, dated 07-12-1994, to the extent of not being granted back-wages while seeking consequential direction to the management to pay back-wages from the date of removal till the date of the Award.

( 3 ) SINCE both the writ petitions are filed against the same award in I. D. No. 414 of 1993, dated 07-12-1994, they are being disposed of by a common order.

( 4 ) THE facts relevant for the purpose of these writ petitions are that: the petitioner in W. P. No. 26587 of 1995 (hereinafter referred to as workman) was working as Security Guard in M/s. Hindustan cables Limited (hereinafter referred to as employer ). The workman was alleged to have committed theft of certain copper coils on 20-09-1985. The employer gave a police complaint regarding the theft allegedly committed by the workman, initiated disciplinary action and issued charge memo dated 21-9-1985, levelling charges of theft against the workman. An enquiry officer was appointed, vide proceedings dated 21-12-1985, to enquire into the alleged misconduct of theft. The workman did not participate in the enquiry and did not avail the opportunity to defend himself against the said charges. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding the workman guilty of misconduct of committing theft of 46 copper coils belonging to the company. Inasmuch as the charge of theft, held proved against the workman, was serious the employer passed an order, dated 05-08-1986, removing the workman from service.

( 5 ) PURSUANT to the criminal complaint lodged by the employer, C. C. No. 455 of 1985 was instituted against the workman. Initially, the Additional Judicial First Class Magistrate, hyderabad, East and North, Ranga Reddy district by Judgment, dated 08-09-1988, convicted the workman of the offence, but releasedhim under the Probation of Offenders act. The workman filed Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 1988 before the District and Sessions judge, Ranga Reddy District and the appellate Court allowed the said Criminal appeal on 18-12-1989. The workman was acquitted on the ground that the prosecution had failed to prove his guilt beyond all reasonable doubt.

( 6 ) IN the case on hand, the disciplinary proceedings instituted against the workman culminated in imposition of punishment of removal from service by order dated 05-08-1986, more than three years much prior to his acquittal, by the District and sessions Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in crl. A. No. 36 of 1998 dated 18-12-1989.

( 7 ) THE workman filed an application under section 2 (a){2) of the Industrial Disputes Act in I. D. No. 414 of 1993 before the Additional industrial Tribunal cum Additional Labour court, Hyderabad challenging the order of removal dated 05-08-1986. The Additional industrial Tribunal cum Labour Court while taking note of the fact that the evidence of the management recorded in the domestic enquiry remained unchallenged held that since the criminal Court had appreciated the evidence and acquitted the petitioner, he was entitled to re-in statement. The Additional industrial Tribunal cum Additional Labour court further held that since the workman was out of employment since 1985 and had raised the I. D. more than two years after he was acquitted in the criminal case by the appellate Court he was not entitled for back wages. An order was passed directing the employer to re-instate the workman with continuity of service, and the workman was held not to be entitled for back-wages or any other monetary benefits.

( 8 ) SRI Vedula Srinivas, learned counsel for the employer draws my attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in "allahabad district Co-operative Bank Ltd. , Allah

Click Here to Read the rest of this document