JUDGMENT K.C. Agrawal, A.C.J. - This is a petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution by M/s. Triveni Structural Limited, Naini Allahabad, challenging the award dated February 7, 1981 holding that no charge of theft, alleged to have been committed by the respondent No. 1 (V.K.V. Pilley) on 19-7-1974 had been established and that the punishment given to him by the domestic enquiry was unjustified, illegal and arbitrary 2. The respondent No. 1 was an employee of the petitioner (M/s. Triveni Structurals Limited, Naini, Allahabad). On 19-7-1974 he was in the first shift, which commenced from 6 a.m. and continued upto 2 p.m., with lunch break from 11 to 11.30 a.m. The workers in the machine shop were given cupboard/almirah/drawer, where they could keep the tools given in their personal charge under their lock and key. The respondent No. 1 was also given an almirah for keeping his personal belongings by way of safety. On 19-7-1974 there was a lunch break at about 11 a.m. when Kasbmira Singh, who was a supervisor of the Machine shop, found that the respondent No. 1 was taking out his bag from the almirah, which was full with brass chips. The said supervisor reported the matter to the production Engineer, who came to the machine shop and found at about 12.55 p.m. one tiffin box filled with brass chips. A charge-sheet dated 20-7-1974 was issued to the respondent No. 1 charging him of misconduct of keeping unauthorised possession of the petitioners valuable property with the intention of stealing the same. The respondent was called upon to show cause why disciplinary section be not taken against him. 3. The respondent did not file his reply. Thereafter a domestic enquiry was set up to enquire into the charges. In the domestic enquiry the petitioner was found guilty. After the domestic enquiry the respondent was acquitted by the criminal court by holding that he was not guilty of charge of theft levelled against him. Thereafter he raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to by the Government under Section 10 read with Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This case was thereafter transferred under Section 4-K read with Section 2-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 4. Thereafter he raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to by the Government under Section 10 read with Section 2-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. This case was thereafter transferred under Section 4-K read with Section 2-A of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act. 4. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issue was framed : "Whether the domestic enquiry held against the workman concerned by the employers is fair and properly." 5. The two sets led evidence before the Labour Court. The Labour Court found that the respondent was not guilty of having committed theft on the date alleged and that his dismissal passed on 9-5-1975 was wholly unjustified and illegal. On these findings the Labour Court directed for reinstatement of the said respondent and for payment of back wages with effect from the date of dismissal till the award. Against the aforesaid order, the present writ petition has been filed. 6. Sri P. K. Mukharji, learned counsel for the petitioner, urged that the Labour Court committed an error in giving two findings. These findings were as to whether the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and that the respondent could not be reinstated on the post and also ordered payment of back wages. 7. I have heard counsel for the parties. In my opinion the Labour Court's judgment is perfectly correct and as it does not suffer from any mistake much less apparent, this court cannot interfere under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Labour Court rightly took into account the fact of acquittal of the respondent, which came into existence after the domestic enquiry and found, by placing reliance on the same as well as on other circumstances as also the statements of the witnesses produced before it, that the respondent had not committed any theft and he had falsely and incorrectly been implicated because of Kashmira Singh, who was the main incharge of the shop, where the respondent was working. It rightly held that the dismissal of the respondent was unjustified. 8. It is admitted that the Judgment of the criminal court came into existence after the domestic enquiry was over. This judgment could be and was rightly looked into by the Labour Court for coming to the finding that the employer had failed to bring the charge home against the respondent. 8. It is admitted that the Judgment of the criminal court came into existence after the domestic enquiry was over. This judgment could be and was rightly looked into by the Labour Court for coming to the finding that the employer had failed to bring the charge home against the respondent. If the allegation of theft was not established, it necessarily follows that the punishment awarded by the domestic enquiry was unjustified on the face of it. Consequently, the award of the Labour Court is correct and does not call for interference. 9. For the reasons given in the above, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. No costs.