An employee's acquittal for alleged offences due to lack of evidence does not disentitle them from service benefits or reinstatement in service.

JUDGMENT :

Ravindra V. Ghuge, J.

Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally by the consent of the parties.

2. Considering that the learned Advocates for the respective sides were prepared to address the Court on the petition itself, the civil application seeking an out of turn for final hearing the petition stands disposed off.

3. The petitioner Municipal Corporation is aggrieved by the judgment and award dated 14.09.2015 delivered by the Industrial Tribunal, Amravati in Reference (IDA) No.2/2008 by which the Industrial Tribunal has answered the reference in the affirmative and has delivered the following award:

AWARD

1. The reference is answered in the affirmative.

2. The Party no.2(ii) is entitled for the monetary benefits of suspension period from 17.8.1989 to 18.6.2007 as duty period and also entitled for the wages of above suspension period and arrears of wages. The party no.2 is also entitled for the time bound promotion and higher wages.

3. The party no.1 is directed to pay to party no.2 all monetary benefits of suspension period from 17.8.1989 to 18.6.2007 as duty period and also pay wages of above suspension period and arrears of wages and further directed to give him time bound promotion and higher wages.

4. There shall be no order as to costs.

5. The Award be sent to the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur.

6. The conciliation proceedings be sent to the Additional Commissioner of Labour, Nagpur.

4. Though the learned Advocates for the respective sides have strenuously supported their pleadings, I find that the issue that needs to be considered in this petition is as to whether respondent no.2 workman was entitled for all monetary benefits even during the period of his suspension.

5. Respondent no.2, the workman herein, was undisputedly an employee of the Amravati Municipal Corporation. He was arrested on account of an offence having been registered against him under Section 302 of the IPC. He was arrested and was admittedly in jail from 27.08.1989 till 19.12.1989.

6. The record reveals that after he was released on bail, he approached the petitioner for being reinstated in service as the petitioner placed him under suspension w.e.f. 27.08.1989 as he was detained in police custody remand for more than 48 hours. Admittedly, the petitioner Corporation did not allow him to report for duties on the pretext that his case was before the Court of Criminal jurisdiction and until the criminal trial with regard to the offence alleged to have been committed by him is not completed, he would not be permitted to report for duties. It is undisputed that the employee was acquitted by judgment dated 13.12.2006 delivered in Sessions Trial Case No.16/1997.

7. The learned Advocate for the Corporation places reliance upon the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the matter of Raj Narain v. Union of India and others, (2019) 5 SCC 809. Contention is that the employee can blame himself for the misfortune that has befallen him. The employer never initiated any disciplinary proceeding against him and the suspension of the employee was not on account of any legal action initiated by the petitioner Corporation. He was placed under suspension since he was kept in police custody remand beyond 48 hours and hence, the Corporation relied upon the Rule 72 of the Maharashtra Civil Services (Joining Time, Foreign Service and Payment during suspension, dismissal and Removal) Rules, 1981. It is also canvassed that the acquittal of the concerned employee was on account of benefit of doubt and not by way of an honourable acquittal.

8. With the assistance of the learned Advocate for the petitioner Corporation, I have gone through the judgment delivered by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Raj Narain supra. I find that paragraph nos. 5, 6, 7 and 8 are relevant and which read as under:

6. The decision of Ranchhodji Chaturji Thakore was followed by this Court in Union of India v. Jaipal Singh to refuse back wages to an employee who was initia