1. In both the matters, Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. With consent of the parties the matters are taken for final hearing immediately.

2. Heard the learned counsel for the parties.

3. These are two counter petitions arising out of the order passed by the Industrial court on 11th April, 2008 in Complaint ULPA No.1032 of 1993. One Petition is filed by the employer/Management of the Automotive Manufacturers Ltd. and second petition is filed by employee - Smt.Sweety Aranha.

3A. Admitted facts are that the employee was initially appointed as telephone operator and her services were confirmed. Thereafter she was posted as a Assistant Dispatch Clerk. In September, 1990, two employees of this employer had died and their dead bodies were in the mortuary of the Government Medical College and Hospital, Nagpur. Mr.Kalantari – Manager of the employer had been there. The employee was also present there. According to the management, the employee assaulted Mr.Kalantri and on his report an F.I.R. was registered and she was also prosecuted. On 26/9/1990, the Management issued a charge-sheet to the concerned employee in respect of the assault on the Manager Mr.Kalantari. The employee filed Regular Civil Suit No.2443 of 1990 for quashing the domestic

enquiry. However, that suit came to be dismissed on 9/7/1993, for want of jurisdiction. After that, the employee filed Complaint ULPA No.62 of 1993 for 100% subsistence allowance, as suspension had continued beyond the period of six months. Thereafter, the management began to pay suspension allowance at the rate of Rs.1165/-per month from 1993 onwards. The employee thereafter filed ULPA No.1032/1993, challenging the validity of the charge-sheet, suspension and the enquiry. On 26/8/1993, the Industrial Court granted interim stay to the enquiry. That order was challenged by the management in Writ Petition No.2894 of 1993 and the High Court by order dated 22/10/1993 stayed the order passed by the Industrial Court and permitted the Management to proceed with the enquiry. It may be noted that complaint ULPA No.1032 of 1993 whereby, the employee had sought to quash the charge-sheet and the enquiry and also for getting 100% subsistence allowance at the revised rate of salary, came to be partly allowed only in respect of the subsistence allowance but was dismissed about prayer to quash the charge-sheet and the departmental enquiry. That order has been

challenged by the management, as it is aggrieved by the direction to pay 100% subsistence allowance on the basis of the revised pay scale. The employee has challenged the impugned order to the extent of dismissal of her complaint seeking to quash the charge-sheet and the enquiry.

4. It will be convenient to deal with the question of quashing the proceedings first. The learned counsel for the employee vehemently contended that the incident, on the basis of which the enquiry has been commenced, had not taken place within the premises of the factory and therefore, it cannot be said that there was violation or breach of standing order. Secondly, it is contended that inspite of the fact that more than 18 years have passed after the incident, the enquiry has not been completed for which the management itself is responsible and therefore, it will not be in the interest of justice to continue this enquiry. Thirdly, he contended that the employee was also prosecuted for the same charges on the basis of the report lodged by Mr.Kalantari and she has been acquitted and therefore, there is no

justification to continue this enquiry. All these contentions have been refuted by the learned counsel on behalf of the management. Learned counsel for the management contended that it is well settled position of law that inspite of acquittal in the criminal case, the management can hold the departmental enquiry because the procedure and standard of proof in the criminal case and the domestic enquiry are different. He further contended that the employee had assaul