AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
M. Katju, J.
Heard the learned counsels for the parties.
The respondent No. 3 was appointed as machinist on 791981 vide Annexure1 to the writ petition. It was stated in paragraphs 6 and 7 of the appointment letter that if any information is received subsequently about the detention for interrogation in police lock up or conviction in criminal case which was suppressed, the same shall be treated as disqualification in service. The respondent No. 3 was prosecuted for an offence under Section 182, I.P.C. and on that ground his service was terminated vide order dated 621982, Annexure3 to the petition. Admittedly, the petitioner was subsequently acquitted in the criminal case. It is settled law that where a person is acquitted in the criminal case, the prosecution of the person is to be ignored and the judgment will operate with retrospective effect. Hence, in my opinion the order dated 621982 was erroneous in law since the respondent No. 3 was acquitted in the criminal case.
The respondent No. 3 raised an industrial dispute which was decided in his favour vide award dated 2691995, true copy of which is Annexure 12 to the writ petition.
As far as the merits of the case, I find no infirmity in the impugned award as the respondent No. 3 was acquitted in the criminal case and hence the termination became illegal. However, since the reference was made in 1990, I am of the opinion that while the respondent No. 3 has to be reinstated the impugned award dated 2691995 shall be modified to the extent that the respondent No. 3 shall get only onefourth wages from the date of reference dated 1491990 till today but hence forth he shall be given full wages. He will also be entitled to continuity of service.
The petition is disposed of with these observations.