BALIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THESE two appeals are cross appeals and arise out of the order passed by learned Single Judge in S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2608/95. The facts of the case which lead to these two appeals are that one Dhanna Ram was removed from service of the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation (hereinafter called `the Corporation') on 21. 6. 1979 on account of his conviction by the Judicial Magistrate (Roadways) vide order dated 18. 7. 79 whereby he was sentenced to one day's imprisonment. The said order of conviction was set aside by the learned Sessions Judge on 17. 1. 179 and the matter was remanded back for re-trial. The trial Magistrate after re-trial, by order dated 13. 11. 81 acquitted the said Dhanna Ram from the charges. On 25. 11. 81, Dhanna sought to for reinstatement after acquittal which was not responded to. The matter was taken to the conciliation proceedings before the Joint Labour Commissioner and having failed there, ultimately the dispute about termination of workman's services was referred to the Labour Court, Jodhpur. Before the Labour Court, the employer demanded for an enquiry into the legitimacy of the order dated 21. 6. 79 by seeking an opportunity to prove guilt of the incumbent about the charges for which he had been criminally prosecuted. The prayer was granted by the Labour Court and he was allowed to lead evidence. In support o the said charge, the Corporation filed two affidavits of its employees namely Sardar Ali and Hanuta Ram and they were also cross-examined by the workman before the Labour Court. The Labour Court after appreciating the evidence came to the same conclusion that the employer has failed to prove the charges levelled against the workman and finding the termination to be invalid both on account of acquittal having taken place for which the employee had been prosecuted and the employer having failed to prove the guilt of Dhanna before it ordered his reinstatement with full back wages. Aggrieved with the aforesaid Award dated 19. 1. 95, the Corporation filed the aforesaid writ petition. The learned Single Judge, while upholding the Award left it free for the Corporation to initiate an enquiry if it so desired for which the workman had been found not guilty by the criminal Court as well as by the Labour Court and to withhold the back wages until the said enquiry is completed for which 4 months period was fixed.
(3.) AGGRIEVED with the aforesaid judgment by the learned Single Judge dated 19. 03. 1998, these two appeals are before us. To the extent termination was found o be invalid and the order of reinstatement was upheld by the learned Single Judge, the Corporation is aggrieved and to the extent the learned Single Judge has left the Corporation free to initiate enquiry afresh into the said charge and left the question of back wages to be decided by the employer in the enquiry to be conducted by it, the workman is aggrieved. The Special Appeal No. 831 of 1998 is by the Corporation and Special Appeal No. 554 of 1998 is by the workman. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, we are of the opinion that the appeal filed by the workman must succeed and that of the Corporation must fail. The reason is obvious. So far as charge alleged against the workman is concerned, the evidence led before the criminal Court as well as before the Labour Court are identical, viz. , the statements of Sardar Ali and Hanuta Ram. The Labour Court as well as the criminal Court both did not find the statements of these two persons reliable enough to convict o to hold the workman guilty of the charges levelled against him. ;