Anil Dev Singh, C.J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 20th January, 2000 in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 641/1994, whereby the award of the Labour Court dated 16th February, 1993 was set aside. The facts giving rise to the appeal are as follows : The appellant, while in the employment of the respondent, is alleged to have embezzled a sum of Rs.4,000/-, along with one Raman Lal. A criminal case was registered against the appellant and Raman Lal. This led to filing of charge-sheet against the appellant and Raman Lal in the trial court. While the criminal trial was pending, the services of the appellant were terminated sometimes in the year 1962. Later, the trial resulted in the conviction of the appellant and he was sentenced to undergo three years' rigorous imprisonment. In appeal, however, the, order of conviction and sentence was set aside and the matter was remanded to the trial court. While the matter was pending before the trial court, the appellant agreed to pay a sum of Rs.4,000/- to the respondent No. 1. An agreement to that effect was executed by the appellant on 11th September, 1974. By that agreement, the appellant also gave up all his claims relating to salary against the respondent No. 1. In view of the agreement of the appellant, the respondent No. 1 did not produce its witnesses before the trial court. As a result thereof, the appellant was acquitted by the trial court sometimes in October, 1976. On 2nd November, 1977, the appellant filed an application under Section 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the appropriate Government. On 8th March, 1978 a reference was made by the appropriate Government to the Labour Court for adjudication of the questions, namely, whether or not the termination of service of the workman was valid and if not, to what relief he was entitled to. Thereupon, the respondent No. 1 employer, filed a writ petition in the year 1978 inter alia on the ground that the reference was not competent, as it was made after 16 years. This writ petition was dismissed by a learned Single Judge of this Court.
(2.) Thereafter a second writ petition was filed by the respondent No. 1 on the basis that the termination was in consonance with the agreement of the appellant dated 11th September, 1974 and there was no dispute which the Labour Court was required to adjudicate. This writ petition was also dismissed on 22nd October, 1991 on the ground inter alia that the respondent No. 1 was raising issues piecemeal which are to be considered by the Labour Court. The learned Single Judge also noticed that by the agreement dated 11th September, 1974, the appellant had relinquished all his claims towards the salary. The learned Single Judge, however, was of the opinion that in so far as the question of termination was concerned, the appellant did not forgo his right to challenge the same.
(3.) Since the writ petitions filed by the respondent No. 1 were dismissed, the Labour Court decided the reference on 16th February, 1993. The Labour Court came to the conclusion that on the basis of evidence adduced before it under Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it was sufficiently proved that the workman was guilty of embezzlement and his removal was justified. In spite of this finding, the Labour Court held the appellant entitled to receive salary from 2nd November, 1977 to 15th February, 1993 as the order of termination was passed by the respondent No. 1 without holding an enquiry. The respondent, being aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court, challenged the same before this Court.;