JUDGMENT By Court.-Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The petitioner-appellant was dismissed from service with effect from 11/12th October, 1987. The Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.1, Dhanbad in Reference Case No. 154 of 1989 held that action of the Management in dismissing the workman Narayan Gosai is not justified and directed to reinstate the said employee from the date of dismissal with full back wages and continuity of service. The Management preferred writ petition being CWJC No. 1220 of 1993(R), which has been dismissed vide impugned order dated 2nd June, 2003 and hence this Letters Patent Appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant, at the outset, stated that the respondent-workman is being regularly paid the wages, not only under Section 178 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 but the Management decided to take work also instead of paying the wages under Section 178 of the Act. Therefore, the workman is now in service. However, so far back wages are concerned, according to the learned counsel for the respondent, in writ petition, an interim order dated 8.3.1994 was passed to pay 50% back wages and rest of the 50% back wages has been stayed. In view of the above, 50% back wages has been paid to the respondent-workman. 5. Having given full consideration of the facts and the argument of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered opinion that for the same charge, in a case of theft of 35 kgs. of copper cable amounting to Rs. 2,500/- in the year 1987 for which departmental enquiry was also conducted, the respondent-workman has already been acquitted by the court in criminal trial. Admittedly in the criminal case, charge was of theft and in the departmental enquiry the allegation was also of theft. 6. In that fact situation, if the Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have held that the respondent-workmen dismissal cannot be maintained then they have not committed any mistake. Even if in some cases, the departmental proceeding may proceed, even when criminal case resulted in acquittal, but that depends upon the charge framed in the case and q legation levelled in the departmental enquiry as well as upon difference of evidence which can be there. 7. Even if in some cases, the departmental proceeding may proceed, even when criminal case resulted in acquittal, but that depends upon the charge framed in the case and q legation levelled in the departmental enquiry as well as upon difference of evidence which can be there. 7. Be that as it may, we are of the considered opinion that the respondent-workman who was dismissed from service with effect from 1987 cannot be held to be automatically liable for entire back wages and, therefore, the respondent-workman is now entitled to only 50% of the back wages, which he may have got under the interim order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in writ jurisdiction (as at the relevant time, writ petitions were heard by the Division Bench and subsequently it was finally decided by the learned Single Judge). 8. In view thereof, with the above modification, this Letters Patent Appeal is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above.