Honble LODHA, J.–The unsuccessful workman is in appeal aggrieved by the order of the Single Judge passed on November 20, 1995 dismissing his writ petition under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the award dated 6th of November, 1992 passed by the Labour Court, Kota.

(2). For the sake of convenience, we shall refer the appellant and the respondent No.2 as "workman" and "employer" respectively. On 19th September, 1986, the workman in the night at about 11.05 p.m. after working in the shift, was coming out of the factory. At that time, he initially declined to give search to the watchman. That created some suspicion in the mind of watchman. The workman was searched and from his shoes, two copper pieces weighing about 500 grams were found. The First Information Report relating to this incident was lodged by the employer through his Security Officer on 19th September, 1986 itself at Udyog Nagar, Police Station. The workman was immediately suspended and served with a charge-sheet on 20th September, 1986. The workman responded to the charge-sheet by filing his reply on 29th September, 1986. He denied the charge levelled against him. The discipline enquiry as well as the criminal case continued simultaneously. The Judicial Magistrate (North), Kota by his judgment dated 31st January, 1992 gave the workman benefit of doubt and acquitted him of the offence punishable under Section 381 of the Indian Penal Code. On the other hand, in the departmental enquiry, the charges were found proved by the Enquiry Officer. Based on the enquiry report, by the order dated 1st December, 1986, the workman was dismissed from service. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred by the State Government to the Labour Court, Kota on 13th September, 1988. Before the Labour Court, Kota, the fairness of the departmental enquiry was put in issue by the workman. The Labour Court, Kota vide its order dated 22nd October, 1990 accepted the objection of the workman and held that the departmental enquiry was not fair. The Labour Court gave an opportunity to the employer to prove the misconduct and, accordingly, the employer as well as the workman led their evidence in this regard.

(3). At the time of hearing, the workman argued before the Labour Court that in the criminal case, he has already been acquitted and, therefore, the dismissal order must be declared bad in law. The Labour Court by its award dated 6th November, 1993 held that the dismissal of the workman by the employer was legal and valid and the workman was not entitled to any relief.

(4). The award dated 6th of November, 1993 was challenged by the workman in a writ petition before this Court. The Single Judge dismissed the writ petition summarily at the motion hearing stage on November 20, 1995 giving rise to the present appeal.

(5). The counsel for the workman heavily relied upon the two judgments of the Supreme Court viz., (1) Capt. M. Paul Anthony vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Another (1999) 3 SCC 679 and (ii) G.M. Tank vs. State of Gujarat and Another 2006(4) Supreme 740 = (RLW 2006(4) (SC) 2480) and submitted that the facts, the evidence in the departmental as well as the criminal proceedings being exactly same, upon acquittal of the workman by the Criminal Court, in the departmental proceedings, the workman was entitled to exoneration. He submitted that in a case where the facts and evidence in departmental as well as in criminal proceedings were same without there being any difference whatsoever, the distinction which is usually drawn between the departmental and the criminal proceedings on the basis of approach in burden of proof would not be attracted.

(6). On the other hand, the counsel for the employer supported the award passed by the Labour Court as well as the order of the Single Judge and submitted that the two judgments of the Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony and G.M. Tank (supra) relied upon by the workman have no application to the facts of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document