ORDER R. Gururajan, J.—The Petitioner-workman is before this Court challenging the award at Annexure-A dated 23.10.1999 passed in reference No. 30 of 1990. 2. Petitioner joined the Respondent-Company in the year 1974. He was issued with a charge sheet dated 1.7.1987 alleging therein that the Petitioner at the instance of others abetted/committed theft of Belling Lee Plugs. The quantity according to charge sheet was approximately 200 Nos. A reply was sent by the Petitioner. The Respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings. Enquiry Officer submitted a report on guilt of charges. Management accepted the same. Thereafter an order of dismissal has been passed by the Management. Said dismissal was challenged in reference No. 30 of 1990 in terms of an order of reference made by the State Government by order dated 17.5.1990. Parties have filed their respective statements. Evidence was recorded. Labour Court passed an order holding the enquiry as fair and proper. The labour Court, on merits, ordered that the dismissal order passed by the Management is justified on the facts of the case. 3. This award is challenged in this petition. 4. Heard the learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Sri A.J. Srinivasan, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Labour Court is wrong in finding his client as guilty. He refers to evidence on record. He further contends that the workman was acquitted in CC No. 5866 of 1989 in terms of the order dated 13.11.1991. Despite the said order the labour Court has confirmed the order of dismissal. According to the Counsel this finding of the Labour Court requires my interference. Counsel for the Petitioner refers to various judgments in this regard. 6. Counsel for the management is heard. He says that the workman committed a serious act of misconduct of theft in the matter. He also states that the workman has admitted the charge and the acquittal does not help him in any manner. 7. After hearing both the parties I have perused the material placed before this Court. 8. 6. Counsel for the management is heard. He says that the workman committed a serious act of misconduct of theft in the matter. He also states that the workman has admitted the charge and the acquittal does not help him in any manner. 7. After hearing both the parties I have perused the material placed before this Court. 8. The Company issued an articles of charges in terms of Annexure-B. It reads as under: For reasons stated intra, Sri M. Ravindran, Staff No. 149776 is called upon to furnish his explanation within four days of receipt of this communication as to why disciplinary action should not be taken against him: REASONS: He is in the service of the Company from 27.12.1974 and at present is working as helper in WG II. During the course of his employment, he at the instance of the Sri Amjadulla Khan, Staff No. 150866 and in collusion with S/s. M. Singaram, Staff No. 149506, H.K. Subbaiah, Staff No. 154668, Javare Gowda, Staff No. 104572, Devaraj, Staff No. 114292, Susainathan, Staff No. 025419 abetted/committed theft of Company's property viz. Belling Lee plugs 9200 Nos. (approximate) in order to make personal gain. He has admitted abetting committing theft of company's property vide his signed statement dated 19.5.1987. His act of abetting/committing theft of company's property as stated above constitutes misconduct under Standing Orders 15(1)(c) of the Company. 9. When the same was confronted to the workman, the workman has submitted his reply dated 6.7.1987. He has denied the charges. Thereafter, an enquiry has been held on several dates. Witnesses have been examined. Thereafter, the enquiry officer has submitted his findings holding the Petitioner guilty of charges in the report. The management accepted the same and passed an order on 9.3.1989. The labour Court after recording evidence has ruled that the enquiry is fair and proper. The labour Court notices the entire enquiry proceedings and thereafter it holds that the workman has been given sufficient opportunities in the enquiry. The labour Court notices that the enquiry was held in Kannada language and the Petitioner did have sufficient opportunities in the enquiry. The labour Court after considering the material facts have come to a conclusion that the enquiry is fair and proper. The said order in my view does not call for any interference on the facts of this case. The said order is therefore confirmed. The labour Court after considering the material facts have come to a conclusion that the enquiry is fair and proper. The said order in my view does not call for any interference on the facts of this case. The said order is therefore confirmed. Moreover though the said order is challenged, no serious arguments are addressed before me in the case on hand. 10. The Labour Court subsequently while considering the merits of the matter notices that the findings of the enquiry committee is not perverse. The labour Court notices the material facts to come to this conclusion. While so doing the Labour Court notices the acquittal order and holds that a "mere acquittal by itself does not come to the aid of the workman". Labour Court holds that "for various reasons the first party might have been acquitted and that does not mean he is not involved in the instant case as such". With this finding the labour Court rejects the reference. 11. Parties have essentially argued with regard to the effect of an acquittal order. 12. Admitted facts reveal that the workman was charge sheeted for an act of theft in terms of Standing Order 15(1)(c) of the Company. The charge is that the Petitioner in collusion with other workmen has abetted/committed theft of Company's properties. The articles of charges also refers to an admission in this regard. 13. Simultaneously, the company has also lodged a complaint with the jurisdictional police and they have initiated proceedings under Section 381 Indian Penal Code. The complaint to the police and the mis-conduct are based on same facts are the same or similar. The Criminal Court on appreciation of material evidence has given a clear acquittal to the Petitioner. The Criminal Court has discussed various facts of the case with regard to the act of theft by the Petitioner. The acquittal order is dated 13.11.1991. When the said order was produced before the Court, the Court has not given its attention to the impact of this order in a case like this. The effect of an acquittal order in this matter has been considered by a catena of decisions by the Courts of law. 14. The acquittal order is dated 13.11.1991. When the said order was produced before the Court, the Court has not given its attention to the impact of this order in a case like this. The effect of an acquittal order in this matter has been considered by a catena of decisions by the Courts of law. 14. In 1992 (I) LLJ 226 , the Bombay High Court has held as under: When once an employee is honourably acquitted and completely exonerated at the criminal trial, normally the Port Trust could not have started and proceeded with the departmental enquiry unless they have strong and sound reasons to do so. (Para 13). 15. The Supreme Court in Capt. M. Paul Anthony Vs. Bharat Gold Mines Ltd. and Anr., AIR 1999 SC 1416 after noticing more than a dozen cases ultimately ruled in paras 34 and 36 as under: In the instant case the Superintendent of police had raided the residential premises of the appellant and had recovered a mining sponge goldball weighing 4.5 grams and 1276 grams of gold bearing sand. It was on this basis that a criminal case was launched against him. On the set of facts, constituting the raid and recovery, departmental proceedings were initiated against the appellant as the recovery was treated to be a "misconduct". On the service of the charge sheet, the appellant raised an objection that the departmental proceedings may be stayed as the basis of these proceedings was the raid conducted at his residence on which basis a criminal case had already been launched against him. The findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer, indicate that the charges framed against the appellant were sought to be proved by the police officer and panch witnesses, who have raided the house of the appellant and effected recovery. They were the only eye witnesses examined by the inquiry officer, and the inquiry officer relying upon the statements, came to the conclusions that the charges were established against the appellant. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. The same witnesses were examined in the criminal case but the Court, on consideration of the entire evidence, came to the conclusion that no search was conducted nor was any recovery made from the residence of the appellant. The whole case of the prosecution was thrown out and the appellant was acquitted. In this situation, therefore, where the appellant is acquitted by a judicial pronouncement with the finding that the "raid and recovery" at the residence of the appellant were not proved, it would be unjust, unfair and rather oppressive to allow the findings recorded at the exparte departmental proceedings, to stand. The decision of Division Bench of this Court is reversed by the Apex Court in the said case. After noticing all the judgments the Apex Court has ruled that the workman is entitled for reinstatement subsequent to acquittal. I have followed the said judgment the said judgment of mine in Writ Petition No. 18128 of 1997 dated 24.3.2000 is confirmed in Writ Appeal No. 4244 of 2000 on 18.9.2000. Following the said judgment I have again ruled in ILR 2000 Kar 229 that no proceedings can be initiated after acquittal on same/similar facts. 16. In the light of these judgments it is clear to me that an acquittal on the same set of facts comes to the aid of workman in seeking an order of reinstatement. Unfortunately the Labour Court fell into an error in not properly appreciating the facts. The Labour Court brushed aside the acquittal order in the award without realising the importance and impact of an acquittal order. In the circumstances I am of the view that the Labour Court has committed a serious error in not ordering reinstatement after an order of acquittal. 17. Counsel for the Management contends that there is a confession made already on the part of the workman and therefore the enquiring authority has rightly relied on the said confession statement and the Labour Court also has accepted the finding. Counsel says that I should not interfere on the facts of this case. In the light of this submission I have gone through the said confession at Ex.M10. A careful reading of the said statement would show that it is nothing but an explanation with regard to the entire transaction since the company has alleged collusion of the Petitioner with other staff of the Company. In the light of this submission I have gone through the said confession at Ex.M10. A careful reading of the said statement would show that it is nothing but an explanation with regard to the entire transaction since the company has alleged collusion of the Petitioner with other staff of the Company. He has stated that he has not committed any illegal activity from 1981 onwards. The charge sheet is not clear in this regard, it is silent as to how the Petitioner has abetted/committed theft in the matter. The charge sheet is also bereft of details in the matter of theft. 18. In the circumstances theory of the guilt on the basis of confession statement is not acceptable to me. Moreover the management themselves has felt that it is necessary not to accept the said confession statement. Hence, they have proceeded to hold an enquiry. In these circumstances, the theory of confession statement by itself does not come to the aid of the management. This argument is rejected. 19. Counsel for the management also relies on the judgment of this Court in the case of Sri Puttaswamy Vs. HAL, 1998 (6) KLJ 1 in that case the Court has granted compensation in the matter. That was not a case of acquittal as in the present case. In these circumstances I have no hesitation in holding that the subsequent acquittal is fatal to the case of management in the case on hand. 20. In fact it was suggested to the company to get the matter settled. But they for the reasons best known to them expressed difficulty in settling the matter. In these circumstances I have heard the case on merits. After hearing I have come to a conclusion that the rejection of the argument of acquittal and the subsequent rejection of the claim of the Petitioner is unsustainable in law in the light of various judgments referred to by the Counsel. In the circumstances the impugned award is set aside, I do so in the case on hand. 21. Petitioner's Counsel states that even after acquittal he made a request for reinstatement but his request was turned down and his client, through out, is not employed. In the circumstances the impugned award is set aside, I do so in the case on hand. 21. Petitioner's Counsel states that even after acquittal he made a request for reinstatement but his request was turned down and his client, through out, is not employed. In the circumstances, Petitioner is not only entitled for reinstatement but also full backwages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement including continuity of service and all benefits flowing therefrom on setting aside of the dismissal order by me in this order. The Petitioner was terminated in the year 1989 and was acquitted in 1991. Even after acquittal the Management has contested the case till 2000. 22. In the circumstances I deem it proper to direct the Management to reinstate the workman-Petitioner and settle all his benefits within 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Writ petition is allowed. Award is set aside with above directions. No costs.