JUDGMENT 1. - These two writ petitions have been filed challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Jaipur. While the workman Mukund Lal Gupta has filed writ petition against that part of the award by which he was denied 30% back wage, M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd. has filed the writ petition challenging the same award dated 20.03.1993 by which the removal of workman has been held to be illegal and direction has been issued for reinstatement of the workman with continuity in service with 70% back wages. 2. Mr. Kapil Sharma, learned Counsel for the Management has argued that the learned Labour Court by its order dated 14.08.1985 has grossly erred in holding the departmental inquiry conducted by the Management to be unfair. Subsequently, when the Management filed application before the Labour Court for review such order, it was rejected by the Presiding Officer, only on the ground that since the said order was passed by his predecessor, he cannot, therefore, open and review the same. Learned Counsel argued that this is a non speaking order and is absolutely illegal. Requirement of the law to give reasons in support thereof has not been adhered to. Learned Counsel relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in Union of India and Ors. v. Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. and Anr., 2005 (6) SCC 676. Learned Counsel further argued that even as per the evidence that was adduced before the Tribunal, misconduct of the workman was fully proved. Learned Counsel referred to the affidavits and cross examination of witnesses Sarve Shri Benjaram, Mali Ram, SM Mathur, OP Kulshresth, Natwar Lal and Brijesh Chandra. It was argued that all these witnesses have consistently stated before the Labour Court that amount of Rs. 50/- was recovered from the table of respondent workman M.L. Gupta by Natwar Lal, Inspector of CBI. This amount was counted by S.M. Mathur. The amount was recovered from the file lying just above the rack attached to the table and that Benjaram when asked about it, he pointed out towards that file. It has clearly come in the affidavit that workman ML Gupta demanded from him a sum of Rs. 100/- for giving appointment order, which had returned back from the Personnel Department of petitioner herein sent to him under registered post and was recovered back in the Personnel department. It has clearly come in the affidavit that workman ML Gupta demanded from him a sum of Rs. 100/- for giving appointment order, which had returned back from the Personnel Department of petitioner herein sent to him under registered post and was recovered back in the Personnel department. Coming to know about the same, the petitioner approached the Personnel Department. Workman Mr. M.L. Gupta demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- and then the deal was struck for payment of Rs. 50/- only. Benjaram has further stated that he approached the CBI Officials and narrated entire story to them and it was at their instance that raid was led and the amount of Rs. 50/- was recovered which he had given to Mr. M.L. Gupta. 3. Learned Counsel cited the judgment of the Supreme Court State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827 wherein it was held that the disciplinary authority is free to disagree wholly or partly with the Inquiring Officer since the latter acts as his delegate. When the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, it is not obligatory on his part to give reasons in support of the order. Where it does not agree with the findings of the Inquiring authority, it is necessary to indicate reasons for disagreement. 4. It was argued that the standard of proof that is required for disciplinary inquiry is by preponderance of evidence and Labour Court has interfered with the order of penalty by relying the judgment of supreme Court in the case of Raghuveer Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91 where the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt was applied in criminal cases and it was held that demand was required to be proved and the use of phenolphthalein powder was required to be proved. Even his brother Mali Ram has also proved the demand of bribe to ML Gupta and the deal was finally was struck for payment of Rs. 50/-. 5. Learned Counsel argued that Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering the order of penalty by ignoring standards of proof and the impugned award is therefore liable to be set aside. 6. Learned Counsel for the workman M.L. Gupta has argued that none of the independent witnesses was examined before the Labour Court so as to prove the demand of bribe by the workman. 6. Learned Counsel for the workman M.L. Gupta has argued that none of the independent witnesses was examined before the Labour Court so as to prove the demand of bribe by the workman. Learned Counsel submitted that the witnesses merely stated that the amount was recovered from the file lying below the rack but no witness has stated that any of them saw him receiving amount of bribe by workman of aforesaid amount. Learned Counsel for the workman argued that the none of the witness even stated that they saw the workman demanding the amount of Rs. 50/- and actually receiving the aforesaid amount from the Benjaram. Mere recovery of such amount from the table of the workman as the money could have been placed by the witness Benjaram himself in connivance with someone from the raiding party. Learned Counsel submitted that even inquiry report that was conducted by the Management, the demand was not able to produce any independent witness Mr. S.M. Mathur did not support the story of the department and was declared hostile. Learned Counsel submitted that there was no independent witness to support the demand inasmuch as the Labour Court was justified in disbelieving the evidence relying on the principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court in Raghuveer Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC 91 and Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR 1967 (Raj) 10 . The greatest apprehension should be taken in the matters of trap and the trap was required to be proved by independent witness and the use of philenthel in power should be applied so that it will result in the colour of the hands of the accused and that there should be an independent witness too. 7. In the present case, the Labour Court was perfectly justified in not disbelieving the testimony of witnesses. Learned Counsel argued that the evidence was led before Court there was no reason for denying back wages to the extent of 30% to the workman. The award to is liable to be set aside and the workman held to be entitled to full back wages. 8. It was further argued that the charge against the workman has not been proved even by preponderance of evidence, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent declaring removal was illegal and workman entitled for reinstatement with full back wages 9. 8. It was further argued that the charge against the workman has not been proved even by preponderance of evidence, therefore, the award passed by the Labour Court to the extent declaring removal was illegal and workman entitled for reinstatement with full back wages 9. I have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and perused the cited precedent of law. 10. The law is settled on the question that while in the criminal trial the requisite standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt in the departmental inquiry too therefore when the respondent No. 1 are required to be proved only preponderance evidence. If the criminal offence is not proved beyond reasonable doubt the accused may be entitled to benefit of doubt and the prosecution may eventually fail but department is merely required to prove the charges only by preponderance evidence. This was held as long ago as in 1966. A constitutional bench of the Supreme Court in the case of State of Madras v. A.R. Srinivasan, AIR 1966 SC 1827 , a judgment relied upon by the Management where it was held as under: "Disciplinary authority is free to disagree wholly or partly with the Inquiring Officer since the latter acts as his delegate. When the disciplinary authority agrees with the findings of the Inquiring Authority, it is not obligatory on the part of disciplinary authority to give reasons in support of the order. Where it does not agree with the findings of the Inquiring authority it is necessary to indicate reasons for disagreement. 11. A perusal of the inquiry report which was conducted as a domestic inquiry clearly shows that the department produced number of witnesses and opportunity was afforded to the Management. The inquiry officer has prepared inquiry report by making detailed discussion and thereafter submitted comprehensive report running into 19 pages framing charges against workman but the Industrial Dispute Tribunal surprisingly held that the inquiry to be interfered with by just three line order passed on 3rd August 1995. Even in that order all that it has been stated is that upon hearing representative of the workman and the management, inquiry is set aside and not even this observations that domestic inquiry is held to be interfered with the judicial proceedings when order is passed in judicial on whatever question it may be and including the domestic it was incumbent upon them. Learned Labour Court should have recorded reasons as to why it finds the domestic inquiry to be not fair. In AIR 2005 (6) SCC 676 Union of India and Ors. v. Essel Mining and Industries Ltd. and Anr. the Apex Court while dealing with the case held has under: "We find that though the High Court referred to various statutes relating to the mining activities, e.g. The Mining Act etc., it did not indicate any reason as to why it was of the view that the authority issuing the Notification lacked statutory power to issue the Notification. Though the judgment runs to several pages, after noticing the rival submissions, the High Court in a very cryptic manner, disposed of the writ petition coming to the aforesaid view. It is not the number of pages in a judgment which is relevance. It is on the other hand, the sufficiency of reasons indicated to justify the conclusions. We may only add here that the paragraphs 28 and 29 of the judgment which are supposed to contain the conclusions are not only confusing, but also make little sense. They to quote the immortal words of Lord Summer in Rex v. Nat Bell Liquors Ltd., (1922) AC 128 speak only with the inscrutable face of a Sphink. It is 'unspeaking order' as classically described by Lord Cairns IC in Overseas of the Poor of Walsall Overseas v. London & NWR Co., (1879) 4 AC 30. In the fitness of things, therefore, the High Court should re-hear the writ petition and dispose of the same by a reasoned order. We make it clear that we have not expressed any opinion on the merits of the Case. It goes without saying that the parties shall be free to place all relevant aspects for consideration of the High Court when the matter is taken up afresh. It appears that no interim orders were passed by this Court. While the writ petition is being heard by the High Court, the relief that was granted to the writ petitioners, would be continued. By granting this protection, it shall not be construed as if we have expressed by opinion on the merits of the case. It would be relevant to note one further fact, as contended by the respondent that a Notification containing similar stipulation as was impugned, has been issued on 03.01.2002. By granting this protection, it shall not be construed as if we have expressed by opinion on the merits of the case. It would be relevant to note one further fact, as contended by the respondent that a Notification containing similar stipulation as was impugned, has been issued on 03.01.2002. The relevance and effect thereof, it goes without saying, shall be considered by the High Court if brought to its notice with appropriate pleadings. Since the dispute raised in the writ petition filed in the year 1994, we request the High Court to dispose of the writ petition as early as practicable." 12. Question for determination of this Court is as to whether the quantity and quality of evidence that was led before the Labour Court did not prove charges against the workman by preponderance of probability or whether legal proof as was required in criminal trial could be insisted upon by the labour Court with reference to the judgment relying on the cases for offence of Prevention of Corruption Act. 13. Two witnesses, Benjaram and Mali Ram who have produced in departmental inquiry were not believed by the Labour Court because in its view they were not independent witnesses. Benjaram was the decoy whose appointment order was with the respondent workman who agreed to give the same in lieu of receiving Rs. 50/-. This witness in affidavit has stated that he was called for interview on 12.11.1976 which information he received from the employment exchange and he accordingly appeared for interview. When he went to his native village, he came to know that a registered letter addressed to him has returned back to because he was not available. He approached the personnel department of the management where the respondent workman Shri M.L. Gupta was found on 29.11.1976 who called him at his residence. Instead to going to his residence, Benjaram met his brother following day and informed him about this. Both of them approached Shri Gupta and met him at residence in the evening o the next day. Shri Gupta demanded Rs. 100/- from them and when they expressed inability, he ultimately agreed to pay Rs. 50/- on the next day. Shri Benja Rami his affidavit has further stated that he approached Shri Chauhan on 01.12.1979 who introduced him to Shri Natwar Lal, CBI Inspector who demanded a written application Ex. A-12. Shri Gupta demanded Rs. 100/- from them and when they expressed inability, he ultimately agreed to pay Rs. 50/- on the next day. Shri Benja Rami his affidavit has further stated that he approached Shri Chauhan on 01.12.1979 who introduced him to Shri Natwar Lal, CBI Inspector who demanded a written application Ex. A-12. Natwar Lal read over the said exhibit in the presence of two witnesses and he presented currency note of Rs. 50/-. A report to this effected was prepared which was Ex.M-6. Natwar Lal told him that on demand of money when he would have given the amount to Shri Gupta, he should indicate so by touching his head. He handed over five currency notes of Rs. 10/- each to Mr. Gupta by gesture as required. Shri Gupta asked him to place the currency notes on the file lying below the table and above the rack and then Mr. Gutpa asked him to wait outside. Immediately thereafter Mr. Natawar Lal and Mr. S.M. Mathur reached there they enquired from Mr. Gupta as to where was the money which he has received. Mr. Gupta denied having received any such money. Thereupon when Benja Ram pointed towards the money, Inspector Natwar Lal told him to take out the money from file. Mr. Gupta first of all hesitated then he put on the table. Money was recovered and Memo Ex.11 was prepared. This witness was subjected to extensive cross examination wherein he clarified that the Phenolphthalein powder was not applied to the currency notes that he had given the decoy. Mali Ram another witness has also supported the statement of Benjaram. He in his cross examination stated that Mr. S.M. Mathur who was working as Senior Accounts Officer with the Management has although not stated that he was and eye witness but he stated that the CBI Inspector coming thee and inquiring from the respondent. Apart from him Shri O.P. Kulshrestha was also a witness who was asked to go inside and watch Benjaram giving money to Mr. M.L. Gupta. He stated that when he reached near the almirah in the room, CBI Inspector also reached there and demanded from the respondent the currency notes. He declined having received but thereafter Benjaram pointed towards the file lying between the rack and table top wherefrom the file with currency notes of Rs. 50/- were recovered. M.L. Gupta. He stated that when he reached near the almirah in the room, CBI Inspector also reached there and demanded from the respondent the currency notes. He declined having received but thereafter Benjaram pointed towards the file lying between the rack and table top wherefrom the file with currency notes of Rs. 50/- were recovered. Similarly Brijesh Chand Field Clerk also stated that when the Inspector enquired from Benjaram that where were the currency note he pointed out towards the rack of the table. Inspector then took up the file lying above the rack and put it on the table. Currency notes were lying on that file. Number of persons assembled there including Mr. S.M. mathur and Shri Kulshrestha. Mr. Mathur was asked to count the currency notes and he then told that it was Rs. 50/-. Mr. Natwar Lal has also been produced and has been subjected to extensive cross examination. He has proved the same incident and also the fact that Shri O.P. Kulshrestha and Mr. Mathur were taken as witnesses. Affidavit of OP Kulshresth was filed who has also consistently maintained the same story. 14. Learned Counsel for the respondent management however argued that from what has been stated by all these witnesses, even if it is taken as proved that the petitioner-workman demanded money and received it from them question of demand of money is proved by independent witnesses like Benjaram and Maliram and that Phenolphthalein was not applied to the currency notes would have to be proved in trap cases. The Labour Court was not justified in holding that the safeguards were not taken at the time of demand of the gratification and that independent witnesses were not examined and that the currency notes were not treated with Phenolphthalein powder and all those pre-cautions were not observed and the recovery itself would not be sufficient enough to prove the guilt of the workman. On perusal of the award, especially its para No. 5, it is indeed found that the Labour Court has heavily relied on the ratio of judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Raghuveer Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1976 SC page 91 and the judgment of this Court in Ganpat Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1967 (Raj.) 10 . Perusal of these judgments indicate that they were decided in the context to conviction of the accused for offence under Section 161 IPC. In so far as the judgment of the Supreme Court is concerned in that fact situation, the Supreme Court emphasised the necessity of procuring the independent witness and precautions in recovery and adherence thereto. Facts narrated above clearly go to show that recovery in the present case was made by the Inspector in the presence of number of employees of the M/s Hindustan Copper Ltd itself. Their statements who that they were independent witnesses and apart from evidence of Benja Ram and Mali Ram on the question of demand, recovery of the amount 5 currency notes of Rs. 10/- from the table of the petitioner workman was proved by all such witnesses, one is of CBI Inspector Inspector Natwarlal and Mr.S.M. Mathur and Brijesh Chandra are witnesses of recovery. Two of these witnesses used to sit in the same room behind the respondent on the close by table and have supported the case of the department to the extent that currency notes were recovered from his table lying on file which was placed above the rack and below the table top and such currency notes were recovered in the presence of other employees of management who witnessed all this. Charge against the respondent workman was thus proved by preponderance of probabilities and the labour Court, in my view, has gravely erred in applying standard of proof that was insisting upon by the Supreme Court and relied the cases wherein the conviction was recorded for offence under Section 161 IPC where the required standard of proof is beyond reasonable doubt which of much greater decree. 15. In the present case, the evidence that was adduced before the Labour Court clearly proved charges against the respondent workman by the preponderance of probabilities and was not required to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore Labour Court, in my considered opinion, was not justified in interfering with the order of removal. 16. In the result, the writ petition filed by the petitioner Management is allowed and award of the Labour Court is set aside and consequently the writ petition filed by the workman M.L. Gupta is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.Writ Petition No. 5261/1993 Dismissed/Writ Petition No. 4342/1993 Allowed. *******