1. The prayer in the Writ Petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus to quash the award dated 28.06.1994, passed by the Labour Court, Salem, in I.D.No.508 of 1992, both as against the preliminary finding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the second respondent-Management was fair and proper as well as the award holding that the petitioner's non-employment and dismissal from service was justified and also for a direction to the second respondent-Management to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service along with full backwages and other attendant benefits.

2. The petitioner is the workman and the second respondent is the Management and they shall be referred as such, in this judgment and order. The case of the Workman: -

i) The petitioner was employed as Office boy in the second respondent-Management from 05.03.1984. Whileso, the workman was taken into custody by the Police on 06.12.1990 and detained in the Police Station upto 13.12.1990, and his wife sent a telegram to the Superintendent of Police and also to the Judicial Magistrate, No.II, Sankagiri, alleging illegal detention of the workman. Thereafter, the workman was produced before the Criminal Court on 13.12.1990, seeking remand, implicating him in a theft case by stating that he was arrested on 12.12.1990, in a Lodge at Erode and that, such arrest was made based on the complaint dated 11.12.1990, given by the Welfare Officer of the Management. In the said complaint, it was alleged that the workman was involved in the theft of roller ball bearings from the Company quarters on the night of 05.12.1990.

ii) It was alleged that the Security Officer made a complaint to the Welfare Officer on 06.12.1990, that the front door of house bearing No.E-9/10 in New Block Ponni Nagar, was seen partially open and based on such complaint, verification has been done on the very next day and it was found that 40 roller ball bearings were missing and a report was submitted to that said effect on 06.12.1990. The said fact was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, to the Managing Director and it was stated that an anonymous phone call was received about the involvement of the workman in the theft of the materials and that workman did not turn up for duty from 07.12.1990 onwards.

iii) In such circumstances, a complaint was lodged to the Police on 11.12.1990, and the workman was arrested. On a request made by the Welfare Officer, the Inspector of Police, informed that he arrested the workman on 12.12.1990, in a Lodge and that the workman confessed about the theft and all the 40 ball bearings were seized on 12.12.1990. It was stated by the Inspector of Police that 6 ball bearings were recovered from the Lodge in which the workman was staying and 27 ball bearings were seized from a person at Erode and remaining 7 ball bearings from another person at Coimbatore.

iv) Based on the report submitted by the Inspector of Police, the workman was placed under suspension on 13.12.1990, and a charge sheet was issued to him by the Management on 03.01.1991. The workman submitted is explanation, denying the charges levelled against him.

v) It is stated that the Management did not wait for the disposal of the criminal case and proceeded with the departmental charge sheet. This according to the workman was not justified, as the departmental proceedings and the criminal case were based on the same set of facts. Further, the workman stated that he was denied assistance of a Lawyer, though the Management appointed an outside person, as an Enquiry Officer and also appointed the Presenting Officer, which were not provided for, as there is no certified Standing Orders for the Company. It is further stated that the model Standing Orders also does not provide for an appointment of the Management representative and therefore, the procedure adopted by the Management is unjust and improper.

vi) The domestic enquiry was posted on 19.03.1991 and it is stated that on the said date, the work