Judgment:
1. By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the Petitioner inter alia, seeks to challenge refusal of backwages by the Labour Court in Application (LCB) No. 802 of 1978, decided on November 28, 1986, and also decision of the Industrial Court by which Appeal of the workman No. 106 of 1986 was partly allowed granting 20% of the backwages; whereas, the Petitioner was seeking full backwages as mentioned hereinabove.
2. The facts giving rise to this writ petition are as follows :-
(a) The Petitioner-workman was in the permanent employment of Kohinoor Mills No. 1 Respondent No. 1 from 1968 as a coolie. At the relevant time the said Kohinoor Mills was the employer of the Petitioner in 1968;
(b) Pursuant to the take over of the Kohinoor Mills on October 18, 1983, under the Textile Undertaking (Taking Over of Management) Act, 1983, the National Textile Corporation (hereafter 'N.T.C.') came on the scene, and accordingly the National Textile Corporation is the 2nd Respondent in this petition.
(c) It is the case of the Petitioner that while he was working as coolie in the Folding Department of the Mills on Ticket No. 114 and his last drawn wages were Rs. 32/- plus Dearness Allowance and all other Allowances, the Petitioner was falsely implicated on May 29, 1974 in a theft case the Security Officer or Respondent No. 1 :
(d) The Petitioner was prosecuted before the Metropolitan Magistrate's Court Kurla. He was acquitted by Judgment dated June 17, 1975;
(e) Thereafter the Petitioner approached the Kohinoor Mills for joining his duty but was not allowed to re-join.;
(f) On August 29, 1975 the Petitioner forwarded letter of approach under Section 44 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. Despite the letter of approach, the said Kohinoor Mills did not allow the Petitioner to re-join. No reply was given to the said letter;
(g) In the circumstances, the Petitioner was constrained to file Application (LCB) 802 of 1978 in the IInd labour Court at Bombay, under Section 78 and 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946;
(h) 4 Issues came to be framed by the labour Court which read as follows :-
'(i) Is the inquiry held against the Applicant into the alleged misconduct fair and proper
(ii) Whether the given evidence in the enquiry substantiate the charges of misconduct in duty by the Applicant
(iii) Whether the sentence is proper
(iv) Whether the Applicant is entitled to the relief claimed in para 11 of Exh. U-17-1 ?'
(i) The Labour Court found that the domestic enquiry held against the employee in respect of the charge-sheet given to the workman was not fair and proper. Evidence was also led before the Labour Court, and although no specific issue was framed in that regard, there is no discussion in the impugned order of the Labour Court holding that the company had failed to establish that the Petitioner had committed the alleged misconduct of theft as per Standing Order 21 (d). The Labour Court also found that there was no evidence even before the domestic inquiry to substantiate the charge of misconduct. Despite the said finding of fact that the misconduct has not been proved, the Labour Court refused backwages although it granted reinstatement to the workman from May 29, 1974. Backwages were refused on the ground that the acquittal by the Criminal Court was not a clean acquittal but it was an acquittal based on benefit of doubt. Against the said order, only the workman and not the company, preferred an appeal being Appeal No. 106 of 1986 before the Industrial Court, Bombay. The Appeal was filed as the workman sought full backwages which was rejected by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court by the impugned order dated March 16, 1988 came to the conclusion that the Labour Court could not have rejected the entire backwages. The Industrial Court came to the conclusion, however that the Labour Court cannot reject the full backwages only on the ground that the acquittal by the Criminal Court was not a clean acquittal. On these findings, the Industrial Court came to the conclusion that the workman was entitled to backwages but he was entitled only to 20% of the said backwages, i.e. for the intervening period from May 29, 1974. No reasons, as required in law, have been given by the Industrial Court while passing the impugned order.
(i) In these circumstances, the present writ petition has been filed.
3. It is now well settled principle of law that the criminal inquiry is quite distinct from the domestic enquiry and the rules which are applicable to a domestic enquiry do not apply to the cases of criminal enquiry/trial. In the event of an employer coming to the conclusion that the acquittal of the Criminal Court was based on benefit of doubt, the employer was entitled to charge-sheet the employee and hold an enquiry which has been done in the present case. However, as indicated above, the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair and secondly even the conscience of the Labour Court was not satisfied before which evidence was led, and the Labour Court came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct was not proved. In the circumstances, one fails to understand as to how the Labour Court could refuse the backwages on the ground that the acquittal by the Criminal Court was not a clean acquittal.
4. Coming to the impugned order of the Industrial Court, as indicated above, no reasons, as required in law, have been given by the Industrial Court also for withholding the 80% of the backwages. In the circumstances, the workman is right in filing this Petition, as he is entitled to the full backwages, once the enquiry is held to be unfair, and once it is held that the misconduct levelled against the workman has not been proved.
5. In the circumstances, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a) with no order as to costs.