JUDGMENT R.S. Dhavan, J. - This writ petition is by a public sector undertaking National Textile Corporation, U.P. Ltd., which otherwise is the custodian of the erstwhile Messrs Atherton Mills, Ltd., Anwar ganj, Kanpur in pursuance of the provisions of Laxmiratan and Atherton (Taking over of Management) Act, 1976 (Act No. 98 of 1976). Nanhoo Lai is the workman, and respondent No.3. 2. On August 22, 1979, Nanhoo Lai was apprehended by the security staff in an attempt to smuggle out of the mill premises, it is alleged three pieces of cloth measuring 6 and 3 meters. A police report was instituted for an of fence under Section 370 Indian Penal Code, on a charge of theft. Upon a charge sheet being submitted the matter was tried as case No. 500 of 1980 by-the Metropolitan Magistrate. This aspect will engage the attention of the Court subsequently. The petitioner corporation served the charge sheet on the workman dated August 24, 1979. The domestic enquiry kept getting adjourned as the record reveals that the workman would not appear between 7.9.1979 to 2.2.1980. Appearance of the workman before the Enquiry Officer was not regular and the cause of absence is not satisfactory. The Enquiry Officer submitted a report and found the charge of theft wholly proved and the management in pursuance of the enquiry report passed an order of dismissal on March 1, 1980. 3. The workman Nanhoo Lai raised an Industrial Dispute after conciliation between the employer and workman failed. The matter was referred for adjudication under Section 4-K of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1987 and numbered as adjudication case No. 5 of 1982 before the Labour Court (III) Kanpur. The Labour Court examined the matter on merits and reflected upon the domestic enquiry and was not satisfied that the charge of theft had been proved and by its award of July 29, 1985 directed reinstatement and continuity of service. 4. One relevant information was eluding the record of the Labour Court. While the matter was under adjudication simultaneously, the Metropolitan Magistrate was considering the charge against the workman under Section 379 Indian Penal Code for the theft. In the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated January 27, 1982 the charge was established beyond doubt and the workman Nanhoo Lai was convicted. Punishment was payment of Rs. 200/- as fine, failing which he was to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. In the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate dated January 27, 1982 the charge was established beyond doubt and the workman Nanhoo Lai was convicted. Punishment was payment of Rs. 200/- as fine, failing which he was to undergo simple imprisonment for two months. Before the Magistrate the Workman had pleaded that he may be left off after being admonished and he should be treated as a first offender under the U.P. First Offenders' Act, as he had been either tried for any offence hitherto before. This possibly may have persuaded the Magistrate to let the workman Nanhoo Lai off with a fine of Rs. 200/- only. 5. Unfortunately, none of the parties intimated the Labour Court that while the matter was under adjudication a criminal court of competent jurisdiction had returned a verdict that the offence with which the workman had been charged had been established. The judgment of the criminal court is a relevant factor for this court and the record of the adjudication proceedings reveals that barring a state reference to these proceedings in evidence by one officer of the Corporation, a copy of the judgment delivered by the Metropolitan Magistrate aforesaid, convicting the workman Nanhoo Lai was not placed on the record. The question which arises is, would the decision of the Labour Court been otherwise if the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate indicting the workman for charge of theft and accordingly convicting him with punishment was before it? Indeed on the record the absence of the judgment constituted a manifest error and it is apparent from the face of record. 6. The two decisions of the Labour Court and the Metropolitan Magistrate, conflict with each other. Once a criminal court returns a decision on conviction or acquittal, it is relevant evidence. Such evidence may be a factor which may have a bearing on decision-making of the Labour Court in industrial adjudication. Unfortunately, in the present case the Labour Court did not have the benefit to pay heed to the decision of the Metropolitan Magistrate, in pursuance of which the workman Nanhoo Lai stands convicted. 7. The issue before this Court is what ought to be done in the face of the award which clearly gives a clear certificate to the petition on the face of the criminal court holding him guilty of an offence under the Penal Code, the charge is theft. 7. The issue before this Court is what ought to be done in the face of the award which clearly gives a clear certificate to the petition on the face of the criminal court holding him guilty of an offence under the Penal Code, the charge is theft. Whether the offence, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, is petty is another matter. Only the case is one of the remanding the matter back to the Labour Court, to reconsider the position in the face of the judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate, aforesaid, which convicts the workman Nanhoo Lai. 8. This aspect could engage the consideration of the Labour Court as the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 stands amended by Section 6 (2) A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and the quantum of -punishment needs to be reconsidered. The effect of this section is that it gives a discretion to the Labour Court, or Tribunal to blend the order of punishment with the grave ness of the charge. Should the Labour Court or Tribunal find that the punishment is too harsh it has been given the discretion to award lessor punishment in lieu of order of discharge or dis missal, circumstances permitting. Such would have been the order in this case. 9. Learned counsel for the Workman Nanhoo Lai pleaded with this Court that he was suspended on August 22, 1979 and dismissed on March 1, 1980 and that it is difficult to ignore the judgment of the Magistrate by which his client been convicted yet, to remand the matter back may be harsher only to blend the punishment to make it compatible with the order of conviction. It was his contention that any discretion that the Labour Court might have, this Court would have under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The submission of learned counsel for the workman Nanhoo Lal was that this Court may take judicial notice of the conviction of the Magistrate's court and accordingly vary the award, and his client would accept the decision. He submitted that in any case in pursuance of the order of this Court, and as consequence of the award he has been reinstated. 10. That needs to be taken judicial notice of its judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate. He submitted that in any case in pursuance of the order of this Court, and as consequence of the award he has been reinstated. 10. That needs to be taken judicial notice of its judgment of the Metropolitan Magistrate. The contention on behalf of the workman that two parallel proceedings are permissible in matter such as this i.e. the domestic enquiry which may ultimately see adjudication before the Labour Court and the enquiry of the offence by the criminal court and the each proceeding may take an independent decision cannot be seen in isolation in the context that a criminal court award conviction upon the workman. The employer's confidence and faith has also been shaken, so upon the very yardstick of equity by which plea may be raised that the decision of the criminal court be ignored the same standards would apply for conviction as a consequence of an offence of theft jolts the employer's faith and no court can measure the degree. In the present case, the employer and the employee both have left the moudling of the relief to this Court. 11. The fact that the matter is not being remanded back so that substantial justice may be done by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not mean that the award remains. The conviction is on record and has not been noticed by the Labour Court. The award, thus, is incorrect and suffers from an error notwithstanding that parties may not have brought a relevant fact to its notice. Though the fault is not of the Labour Court. 12. In pursuance of Section 6(2) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 this Court considers it appropriate to permit the award to remain would be compromising public justice when a criminal court of competent jurisdiction has convicted the workman Nanhoo Lai and the judgment of the criminal court has not been noticed by the Labour Court. On the other hand, to set aside the order of reinstatement so that the dismissal may remain only on the ground, in facts and circumstances of the present case, of petty theft and consequential penalty of Rs. 200/- may be too harsh. 13. On the other hand, to set aside the order of reinstatement so that the dismissal may remain only on the ground, in facts and circumstances of the present case, of petty theft and consequential penalty of Rs. 200/- may be too harsh. 13. After having put a proposition to the learned counsel for the parties at the Bar they agree that it would be appropriate, as suggested by the Court, that the Order of reinstatement may remain along with continuity of service and that for the period between August 22, 1979 to March 1, 1980 the workman Nanhoo Lai would be receiving only the suspension allowance and not the entire salary. August 22, 1979 is the date when he was suspended. March 1, 1980 is the date when his services were terminated. This was the period of suspension. While there will be continuity of services the workman would have to be content with not the entire wages but only suspension allowance, which he has already received. Thus, the reliefs to the workman are varied in these terms. 14. In pursuance of the interim orders of this Court dated April 12, 1987 and November 4, 1987, the monies to be paid to the workman under the award, lie with the Labour Court. Within a fortnight from today the petitioner Corporation will indicate to the Labour Court the wages which are to be retained and not to be paid to the workman for the period August 22, 1979 to March 1, 1980. The amount representing the suspension allowance already paid will be retained by the Labour Court, thereafter, the balance will be paid to the workman within a week thereafter. 15. As parties have shown grace in solving the issue the petition is allowed but without any costs.