1. Vide this writ petition the petitioner had challenged the award dated 30.10.2002.

2. The workman was served of this writ petition by way of publication yet no one for the workman has attended the court proceedings at any stage. Despite the fact that this court restrained itself from passing any adverse order against the respondents in his absence and continued waiting for him to put up his appearance, none on behalf of the respondent no.1, the workman had put up any appearance before this court. Finally the court had heard the arguments on behalf of the petitioner.

3. The admitted facts of this case are that respondent no.2, Mr.Y.S.Ramarao (the workman) was working with the petitioner on daily wages/muster roll employee at Badarpur Thermal Power Station, Badarpur, New Delhi as Heavy Duty Mazdoor. On 21.2.1980, as he was caught stealing away company’s property. The matter was reported to the police and an FIR No.54/1980 was registered at police station Badarpur, New Delhi. Thereafter, vide letters dated 22.05.1980 and 15.03.1980 he was placed under suspension. The respondent no.2 was chargesheeted for committing misconduct and violation of clause 17 (a) of the Model Standing Orders framed under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 (hereinafter called as Model Standing Orders). Subsequently, the charges was amended and in place of clause 17 (a), the contravention of clause 14.3 (b) of Model Standing Orders was recorded.

4. On 16.07.1980, respondent no.2/workman filed his reply to the charge sheet. Since reply was not found satisfactory, the enquiry proceedings were initiated. Sh.H.S.Bhattal, Senior Law Officer was appointed as Inquiry Officer. The inquiry was held in accordance with the Model Standing Order. The petitioner had examined five witnesses who were duly cross examined by the workman. The workman had examined six witnesses in support of his case and his witnesses were also duly cross examined by the petitioner. The parties had also filed their respective documents. The inquiry officer submitted his report to the disciplinary authority. After examining the report, the disciplinary authority issued a show cause notice dated 04.09.1982 asking the workman to submit his explanation qua the proposed punishment. On 25.09.1982, the workman submitted his explanation to the disciplinary authority. The disciplinary authority on 28.12.1982 after considering the inquiry report and reply to the show cause notice and other material on record passed the dismissal order of the workman. Vide order dated 28.10.1983 of the criminal court, the workman in FIR no.54/1980, P.S.Badarpur, New Delhi was acquitted on the grounds of benefit of doubts. On 15.02.1984, the workman filed an appeal to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director against dismissal order who after considering the appeal and all the material on record dismissed it vide its order dated 26.03.1985.

5. In the year 1989, the workman raised the dispute before the Conciliation officer and the same was referred for adjudication to Central Government Industrial Tribunal, which thereafter was transferred to Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court, Lucknow for adjudication. The award was passed on 30.10.2002 which is under challenge before this court. Vide this award the dismissal order was set aside and order of reinstatement with full back wages and all consequential reliefs was passed.

6. The petitioner has challenged the award on the following grounds:

(a) That the labour court had erred in holding that the petitioner ought not to have been

proceeded with the departmental enquiry, since a criminal case was pending trial and thus the inquiry was not fair. It is argued that there is not bar in law, to simultaneously continue with the departmental enquiry and the pendency of a criminal trial does not automatically stay the continuance of a departmental inquiry and thus the findings of the labour court to this effect are contrary to law.

(b) Tha