( 1 ) BY these cross-petitions, the employer and the employee have challenged the same award of the Industrial Tribunal, Vadodara in Reference I. T. (Central) No. 4 of 1992. By consent and at the request of the learned counsel for the parties, both the petitions were heard together finally and are disposed by this common judgment.

( 2 ) FOR the sake of convenience, the parties herein are described as "the employer" and "the workman". By the impugned award dated 13. 1. 2000, the order terminating the service of the workman has been set aside with the direction to reinstate him on his original post with continuity of service and all the consequential benefits as also with the driection to pay 50% of the backwages and costs of Rs. 1,000. 00. The relevant facts, in brief, are that the workman was allegedly caught pouring petrol and oil in his scooter on 23. 4. 1981 while on duty. On the charge of stealing petrol and oil of the company, a criminal case as well as a departmental enquiry was instituted against the workman. The workman was acquitted in the criminal case upon getting benefit of doubt and the departmental proceedings were concluded with the finding that the workman was "actually caught stealing only mobil oil in scooter No. GRE 6500 on 23. 4. 1981 at about 5. 15 a. m. and thus he is guilty of misconduct under Clause 22 (iv) of the companys standing orders. " On the basis of that finding, the workman was dismissed and the order of his dismissal was upheld in the departmental appeal. The workman had, therefore, preferred Special Civil Application No. 4375 of 1983 in this Court and that petition was rejected on 25. 1. 1991. The workman then approached the Industrial Tribunal by raising an industrial dispute wherein, after hearing and appreciating the evidence on record, the aforesaid impugned award and order are made.

( 3 ) IT was vehemently argued by Mr. M. R. Bhatt on behalf of the employer that by dismissing Special Civil Application no. 4375 of 1983 by a detailed order, this Court had practically negatived all the contentions of the workman and upheld the punishment of dismissal leaving no scope for the Industrial Tribunal to arrive at a different conclusion and make an order of reinstatement. The learned counsel took the Court through the text of the judgment from which the following observations were emphasised:-" In my opinion, therefore, the case of the accused falls within the aforesaid exceptions and hence the enquiry proceeded with by the competent authority and finally concluded with the said appellate finding is quite proper. "". . . . . IN other words, this Court is not sitting in appeal over the finding of the enquiry officer and for that matter of the appellate authority. It has to be broadly seen whether the domestic enquiry is held in accordance with the rules, if there be any, governing the same and whether the principles of natural justice and that of fair play have been observed or not? The enquiry as such has not been challenged on that count anywhere. "referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court reported at 1977 S. C. R. 462, it was further observed in the aforesaid earlier judgment that:" Much less can it, therefore, evaluate the evidence to know whether it is amenable to another interpretation or any other conclusion based on that very evidence. What is required to be seen is whether the facts before the enquiry officer are such as would be possible to come to the conclusion that the enquiry officer has come to. If that be so, the finding of the enquiry officer subject to the enquiry whether principles of natural justice are followed or not, is final. "and the concluding remark that: "all told, therefore, what appears is that it is not a case of no evidence. . . . . . " were printed out.

( 4 ) ON the basis of the observations as above, it was submitted that the procedure adopted by the employer as also the conclusions arrived at in the enquiry and the ultimate orders of dismissa