ORDER :

1. The order dated 25th January 2017 passed in WP (S) No. 1323 of 2009 is under challenge on the ground that the memorandum of settlement signed by the employer and employee would be binding on both the parties and the employee is therefore not entitled for back wages.

2. The learned writ Court has held as under:

“6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of view that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was convicted in criminal case and after conclusion of the trial, he was honorably acquitted in the criminal appeal. This Court has held that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against this petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 2003. In the present case, the petitioner was acquitted by the Appellate Court. There can be no manner of doubt that the said acquittal revert back and the initial order of conviction would stand obliterated. On that basis there can be no manner of doubt that the substratum of the cause that had led to respondent's dismissal/discharge in the present case had ceased to exist. The same would entitle him to be reinstated in service and same has been duly performed by respondents. However, the grant of back wages is not automatic and such an entitlement has to be judged in the context of totality of the facts of a given case. His subsequent acquittal though obliterates his conviction but does not operate to retrospectively wipe out the legal consequences of the conviction. The entitlement of the petitioner to back wages has to be judged on the aforesaid basis. His reinstatement undoubtedly became due following his acquittal and as such the petitioner is entitled to back wages from the date of lodging the demand of the same for his acquittal until the date of his reinstatement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in paragraph nos. 24 and 25 in case of Fisheries Department, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Charan Singh, (2015) 8 SCC 150 has held as under:

24. Thus, the principle of “no work no pay” as observed by this Court in a catena of cases does not have any significance to the fact situation of the present case as the termination of the services of the workman from the post of Tubewell Operator is erroneous in law in the first place, as held by us in view of the above stated reasons.

25. The respondent and his family members have been suffering for more that four decades as the source of their livelihood has been arbitrarily deprived by the appellant. Thereby, the right to liberty and livelihood guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been denied to the respondent by the appellant as held in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corporation, wherein this Court has held thus: (SCC pp. 571-542, Para 32)

7. In view of the settled principles of law and in view of the Catena of Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for back wages from the date of he had lodged the demand after his acquittal i.e. 22.11.2006, until the date of his reinstatement. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed.”

3. BCCL has filed IA No. 728 of 2018 to bring on record the relevant documents annexing the complete records produced in WP (S) No. 1323 of 2009.

4. The writ petitioner (hereinafter referred to as “respondent”) who was the permanent employee of BCCL was posted as Mining Sirdar at Moonidih Project. The respondent while working under BCCL was involved in Putki PS Case No. 32 of 2000 which was registered under sections 498A, 302, 201 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code on suspicion that his daughter-in-law was murdered in prosecution of criminal conspiracy hatched by him, his wife and son. The respondent was convicted and sentenced to RI for 10 years under section 304B of the Indian Penal Code by judgment dated 7th June 2003 passed in Sessions Trial No. 17 of 2001. On appeal, the said judgment was set-aside by judgment dated 29th August 2006 passed in Criminal