Judgment S. B. Sinha, J. 1. This writ application is Directed against an order dated 23-5-1983 pasted by respondent No.2 as contained in Annexure-4 to the writ application whereby and whereunder it was hald that the domestic enquiry held as against the workman was not fair, proper and in accordance wish the principles of natural justice as also for quashing the award dated 2-12-1985 passed by respondent No.1 whereby and whareunder, respondent No.1 answered the reference agaisst the petitioner and in favoar of tha concerned workman an directed thai the workman ba reinstated with half back wages from the date of dismisssl, i. e. from 6-12-1968 to 24-1-1977 and full bach weges thereafter till his reinstatement at the rate of wages admissible to him on the date of dismisial. 2. The fact of the matter lies in a very narrow compass. 3. Admittedly, respondent-workman at the material time was working as Ward-Keeper. A charge-sheet was served upon respondent No.1 workman on or about 31-1-1968 stating Inter alia therein as follows ; - "on 23-1-1968 at about 11.45a. M. you along with Mr. S. C. Das ward Keeper, T N.6525/62546/1 got Uucfe No. BRN 5516 loaded under your instruction and supervision near the General Main stores GED with 10 cases of Boosters, The truck against the instruction was being taken unlawfully through the east gate of the Main Worts at your instance. " 4. A first information report was also lodged as against the concerned workman on 20th January, 1968. In the aforementioned domestic enquiry, respondent No.1 was found guilty and he was dismissed from lervioas with effect from 12-8-1968. It appears that in the aforementioned criminal case, respondent No.1 was convicted by judgment dated 23-2-1976. In an appeal preferred by him he was acquitted in terms of the judgment dated 1-9-1976. 5. According to the workman, immediately after his dismissal, he raised a demand with petitioner No 1 on 11-9-1968. For soire time, respondent no.1 had been in custody and after his acquittal in the aforementioned criminal case by the appellate court, he protested against the order of dismissal again on 11-9-1968 According to the workman, the Management did not acceed to his requests not replied to his letters and, thus, on 11-11-1976, the workman raised another demand. 6. For soire time, respondent no.1 had been in custody and after his acquittal in the aforementioned criminal case by the appellate court, he protested against the order of dismissal again on 11-9-1968 According to the workman, the Management did not acceed to his requests not replied to his letters and, thus, on 11-11-1976, the workman raised another demand. 6. The respondent No, 1 did not hear anything from the Management and as such be was constrained to raise demands o.24-1-1977 and again on 16-3-1977. The demand of the respondent No.1 was rejected by the Management on 31-3-1977 and, thereafter, aa industrial dispute was raised by the union before the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 10-9-1077. 7. The State of Bihar in exarcise of its jurisdiction undar Sec.10 (1) (o) of the Industrial Disputes Act issued a notification dated 21-7-1978 referring the following industrial dispute for adjudication by the respondent no.2 5:- "whether the termination of Service of Sri A. K. Madina T. N.6636/60187/1 of M/s. TBLCO Ltd. Jamshedpur is proper and justified ? if not, whether he is entitled to reinstatement and and/or any other relief ?" 8. Before respondent No.2, the petitioner filed and application for deciding the validity and/or legality of the domestic enquiry aa preliminary issue and by reason of an order dated 20-5-1983, respondent No.2 held that the disciplinary proceeding held as against respondent No.1 was not proper and in accordance with the principles of natural justice. 9. Irs the aforementioned order, respondent No.2, Inter alia held that (a)the Inquiry Officer had no jurisdiction to hold an enquiry ; (b) the Enquiry officer relied upon a panchnama and statements of witnesses in a preliminary enquiry without serving the copies thereof upoa the workman. Before respondent No.2 both the parties adduced evidences and the respondent No.2 by reason of bis impugned award dated 2-12-1985 at- contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application held that the order of termination paned as against the concerned workman by the petitioner was not justified. 10. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from a perusal of the impugned award as contained in arnexure-1 to the writ application, it would be appear that respondent No.2 based bis decision primarily on the order of acquittal passed in judgment dated 11-9-1976 in Criminal Appeal No.41/76 which was wholly irrelevant. 11. 10. Mr. Rana Pratap Singh learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that from a perusal of the impugned award as contained in arnexure-1 to the writ application, it would be appear that respondent No.2 based bis decision primarily on the order of acquittal passed in judgment dated 11-9-1976 in Criminal Appeal No.41/76 which was wholly irrelevant. 11. According to the learned counsel, the scope of a domestic enquiry and a criminal trial are different and in view of the fact that by reason of the reference made to it by the State of Bihar, respondent No.2 was directed to adjudicate as to whether the action on the patt of the Management in terminating the services of the concerned workman was proper or not, such an action on the part of the petitioner could not have been held to be invalid on the basis of a subsequent judgment passed in a Criminal trial. 12. Learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the written statement filed on behalf of the workman, it would appear that he accepted that he was entrusted with the goods and he further accepted that he took the truck-in-question to the eastern gate which was not the usual toute. 13. Learned counsel further submitted that even if the defence of the workman is accepted to the effect that the truck broke down and he left the truck after informing M. W.3 on the ground that his duty time was over, evidently he committed an act of negligence. Learned counsel, therefore, submitted that in this view of the matter, respondent No.2 should not have granted the relief of reinstatement in favour of the workman as the Management must be held to have lost confidence in him. Learned counsel in this connection has relied upon a decision of the supreme Court in Mjs. Chembur Co. Industrial Estate V/s. M. K. Chhatra and another, reported in Alr 1975 SC 1725. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that in this case it is evident that the conduct ot the appellant is not free from doubt and further he is at least guilty of negligence in leaving the property uncared for in respect whereof admittedly an endorsement was made to him. 15. 14. Learned counsel further submitted that in this case it is evident that the conduct ot the appellant is not free from doubt and further he is at least guilty of negligence in leaving the property uncared for in respect whereof admittedly an endorsement was made to him. 15. Learned counsel further submitted that in any event in view of the fact that there has been a delay and laches on the part of the workman in raising an industrial dispute inasmuch as admittedly the industrial dispute was raised in the year 1977 whereas the order of dismissal came into force w. e. f, 1.-8-1968 no award of reinstatement should have been passed by respondent No.2 after a period of about 17 years from the date of dismissal. 16. Mr. K. Bahadur, on the other hand, submitted that in the instant case, the concerned workman was not charge-sheeted for commission of any act of negligence. According to the learned counsel in terms of the certified standing Order of the petitioner in respect of each and every charge, the concerned workman is entitled to an opportunity to defend himself. 17. Learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the impugned award as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ application, it would be evident that the concerned workman was not to perform any supervisory duty and he was asked to do so by M W.3. Learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the deposition of M. W.3 it would appear that it was accepted by him that the truck in question went out of order and he was informed by the concerned workman in relation thereto. Learned counsel in this connection has drawn my attention to the finding of respondent no.2 to the effect that in such a situation it cannot be said that the concerned workman has not acted in accordance with his good conscience. 18. Learned counsel further submitted that from a perusal of the award it would further appear that although the judgment of the appellate court dated 11-9-1976 was exhibited and the said document was referred to by it, but the same was not made the basis of the award inasmuch as apart from the aforementioned judgment passed in the criminal appeal respondent No.2 himself has analysed the evidences brought on record. 19. 19. Learned counsel further submitted that in this case, the question of loss of confidence on the part of the Management as against the concerned workman does not arise inasmuch as, as noticed hereinbefore, he was not to perform any supervisory duty and was asked to do the said job by M. W.3 at an exception. It was further submitted that in any vent, as there was no charge as against the workman with regard to the loss of confidence of the management as against him, respondent No.2 did not commit any illegality in directing reinstatement of the concerned workman. 20. Respondent No.2 formulated consideration: -the following questions for his " (i) Whether the charges levelled against the workman constitute any act of misconduct as defined under the works Standing order (ii) Whether the allegation against the workman have been sustained on the basis of the evidence on record (iii) Whether the workman is entitled to the relief prayed for ?" 21. In the instant case, it is evident that the concerned workman was inter alia charged for taking the truck with 10 oases of booster through the eastern gate of the Main Work although the same was not the usual route. Respondent No.1 was charged with a misconduct of abetment of theft of companys property. 22. On the other hand, the case of the workman was that he accompanied the vehicle to its destination but the truck developed some mechanical defect on its way to C. K. D. I. and got stranded and as such he left the truck with an instruction to the driver to take it to C. K. D. I. when repaired. It was further stated that he came back to the office and informed Mr. Sridhar M. W.1 about the break down and he agreed to make some alternative arrangement for unloading the materials at C. K. D. I. As his duty hour was over, he left the works after punching his attending cards. 23. Respondent No.2 has arrived at the findings on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties that the workman got down from the truck near the Lankashire Poiler and he went to the office after the said truck broke down and he telephoned the Senhr Chargeomn i, e. M. W.1. M. W.1 supported him on this point. Respondent No.2 has arrived at the findings on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties that the workman got down from the truck near the Lankashire Poiler and he went to the office after the said truck broke down and he telephoned the Senhr Chargeomn i, e. M. W.1. M. W.1 supported him on this point. In fact, all the witnesses of the Management did not dispute this stand oa the put of the workman. Respondent No.2, therefore, held that there was no element of metis rea nor it caa be said that the good in-question was being taken with the guilty conscience of committing theft by anyone much less the workman who his merely been charged for abetment of theft. 24. It is in this context the respondent No.2 held that he find himself it, full agreement with the findings of the learned 2nd Addl District and sessions Judge passed in Criminal Appeal No.41 of 1976 (Ext.1 ). It was, thus, held by respondent No.2 that the charges levelled against the workman does not constitute an act of misconduct. With regard to point No.2, repondent No, 2 on the basis of the evidence adduced on behalf of the parties came to the conclusion that the Management could not prove the charges of misconduct as against the concerned workman. 25. In this connection, it may be mentioned that respondent No.2, inter alia, held on the basis of the evidence of M. W.4 Mr. Parmanand Singh who made an enquiry on the spot to the effect that the truck could have been taken there, that is, near the eastern gate by mistake and no incriminating circumstance could be brought on record as against the workman. As indicated hereinbefore, the other witnesses examined on behalf of the Management also accepted the fact that the petitioner after the true! broke down near the Lancashire Boiler came to bis office and telephoned Sridhar and he left the office only after his office hoar was over. 26. In fact M. W.4 in his evidence categorically stated that he was himself not sure about the involvement of the workman. 27. broke down near the Lancashire Boiler came to bis office and telephoned Sridhar and he left the office only after his office hoar was over. 26. In fact M. W.4 in his evidence categorically stated that he was himself not sure about the involvement of the workman. 27. With regard to the contentions raised on behalf of the, petitioner to the effect that the workman was guilty of negligence of doty, respondent no.2 rightly held that in view of the Standing Order No.24 (XXXVII) read with Standing Order No.26 (IV) and 25, they have no application in the instant case inasmuch as not only he was not charge-sheeted therefor the mendatory provisions contained in S. O 26 were not followed inasmuch as the workmam was not afforded opportunity of explaining and defending such act of misconduct which he was charged. 28. So far as the matter relating to alleged loss of confidence is concerned, admittedly he was asked to do supervisory doty by M. W.3. The supreme Court in Chandu Lal V/s. The Management of M/s. Pan American world Airways reported in AIR 1985 SC 1128 and in Kamal Kishore Lakshman v. M/s. Pan American World Airways reported in AIR 1987 SC 229 clearly held that even in respect of loss of confidence specific charge should be framed. 29. In this view of the matter, therefore, it cannot be said that any case of loss of confidence as against the workman has been made out. 30. So far as the contention of the petitioner with regard to the relief of reinstatement awarded in favour of the workman by the respondent No.2 is concerned, there cannot be any doubt that some delay was caused in raising the dispute. This factor however has been taken into consideration by respondent No, 2, 31. It is now well known that a Labour Court in view of Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act exercises a wide jurisdiction not only for the purpose of finding out as to whether the action on the part of the Management in dismissing the workman from services is justified or not, but it is also entitled to pass a suitable erder with regard to the quantum of punishment. In this case upon taking into consideration all aspects of the matter, the respondent No.2 has awarded half back wages to the workman from the date of dismissal to the date of raising of the demand. 32. The relief given to the workman by the respondent No.2 cannot be said to be wholly arbitrary or unjustified. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the plight of the workman in facing a criminal trial at the instance of the Management : his conviction by the trial court therein and acquittal after a period of 8 years cannot also be lost sight of. This Court, normally in exercise of its power under Article 227 of the constitution does not interfere with his discretion exercised by the Labour court under Sec.11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 , Sri Shabir ahmad Khan V/s. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Ranchl and another, 1990 lic 447. 33. In view of the fa it that as the respondent No.2 found that the charges as against the workman were not correct and he did not have any mem rea or guilty conscience whatsoever, in my opinion, respondent No.2 cannot be said to have toted illegally in passing the impugned award. 34. Taking thus all the facts and circumstances into consideration, I am of the view that no case for interference with the impugned award by this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been made out. This application is, therefore, dismissed with costs, Advocates fee. Writ application dismissed.