Honble KESHOTE, J.–Having heard the learned counsel for the parties, perusing the writ petition, its enclosures and reply to the writ petition I am satisfied that this petition is wholly misconceived. (2). Challenge has been made by the petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution to the order dated 22.11.1997 of the Labour Court, Jaipur in CLC No. 45/95. (3). Under this order the Labour Court has accepted the claim of the respondent workman of Rs. 60, 205.83 of the difference of the subsistence allowance. The respondent workman was placed under suspension and against him the criminal complaint has been filed and chargesheet has also been served for departmental enquiry. (4). Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that on the application of the respondent workman the departmental enquiry has been stayed pending the criminal case. Learned counsel for the petitioner further admits that in the criminal case the respondent workman has been acquitted. In view of the fact that the petitioner himself on the application of respondent workman stayed the departmental enquiry pending the criminal case it cannot be said that the workman is responsible for the delay in the enquiry. The delay in enquiry is not attributable to the respondent workman in the present case. When it is not attributable to the respondent workman the claim made by him for full pay and allowance to be paid to him after one year of the date of suspension is just and rightly it has been accepted. (5). Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute that in the appropriate case where the management decide to book its officer for his alleged conduct for disciplinary action as well as for criminal liability pending the criminal case the departmental enquiry can be stayed on the request of the delinquent officer. That what precisely has been done in this case. In case the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner is accepted it will result in causing great injustice and irreparable loss to the respondent. That way the management will stay the departmental enquiry and taking it to be a case of delayed in the departmental enquiry be denied abenefits of fully pay and allowances to the suspended employees. Criminal case has has its own life and that is how this way the workman may be put to suffer by the management. That way the management will stay the departmental enquiry and taking it to be a case of delayed in the departmental enquiry be denied abenefits of fully pay and allowances to the suspended employees. Criminal case has has its own life and that is how this way the workman may be put to suffer by the management. It is the discretion of the disciplinary authority to stay or may not stay the departmental proceedings. Once this discretion has been exercised in favour of the respondent workman he is entitled for the benefit of full pay and allowances after one year of the suspension. The Labour Court has taken a reasonable and justified view and the acceptance of the claim made by the respondent workman under the impugned order does not call for any interference of this Court. (6). Accordingly this petition fails and the same is dismissed. In the facts of this case no order as to costs.