Court grants appellant reinstatement with back wages, emphasizes criminal judgment relevance in industrial dispute.

The Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the single Judge's decision and granting the appellant reinstatement with back wages. The discrepancy between the criminal acquittal and the departmental charges led to the Court emphasizing the relevance of the criminal judgment in the industrial dispute. The Court remitted the case to the Industrial Tribunal for quantification of back wages, ensuring alignment with the appellant's entitlements following the criminal acquittal.

---

---

Issues:
Challenging judgment of single Judge in two writ petitions; Allegations of misconduct against appellant leading to dismissal; Industrial Dispute raised for reinstatement; Discrepancy between criminal trial and departmental enquiry charges; Appellant's acquittal in criminal case; Disagreement on granting back wages; Interpretation of Supreme Court judgment in similar cases.

Analysis:
The judgment involves the appellant challenging a single Judge's decision in two writ petitions concerning allegations of misconduct leading to dismissal. The appellant, a driver for the respondent-Port Trust, faced charges related to unauthorized use of a vehicle to abate theft. The Industrial Tribunal ruled in favor of reinstatement without back wages. The appellant's acquittal in the criminal case raised discrepancies between the charges in the departmental enquiry and the criminal trial.

The appellant argued that since the facts and evidence in both proceedings were the same, the acquittal in the criminal case should nullify the punishment. The Board contended that the charges differed, and the acquittal was based on doubt, not innocence. The Court analyzed the Supreme Court's stance on identical facts in criminal and departmental proceedings.

The criminal judgment highlighted flaws in the identification process, casting doubt on the appellant's presence at the scene of the alleged offense. The Industrial Tribunal's finding of abatement contradicted the criminal acquittal. The Court deemed the Tribunal's decision flawed due to non-application of mind, emphasizing the relevance of the criminal judgment.

The Court concluded that the appellant was entitled to reinstatement and back wages, remitting the case to the Industrial Tribunal for quantification. The judgment set aside the single Judge's decision, allowing back wages and emphasizing the need for a back wages inquiry. The Court's order aimed to ensure justice by aligning with the criminal acquittal and granting the appellant his rightful entitlements.

---