JUDGMENT 1. The above petition takes exception to the order dated 22/02/2010 passed by the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in Revision (ULP) No.44/2007, by which order the Industrial Court, Chandrapur in revision confirmed the order dated 25/11/2005 passed by the Labour Court, Chandrapur in Complaint (ULP) No.108/1996. 2. The petitioner herein is a driver working with the respondentCorporation. The petitioner was involved in a fatal accident resulting in the death of one person, on account of which, a chargesheet came to be issued to the petitioner under Clauses 11, 15 and 39 of Schedule A of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure of the respondentCorporation contemporaneously the petitioner was also criminally prosecuted in Criminal Case No.2810/ 1993. The petitioner came to be acquitted in the said Criminal Case by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class by judgment and order dated 29/06/1994. However, in so far as the departmental proceedings are concerned, the charges levelled against the petitioner came to be proved. The Disciplinary Authority considering the enquiry report imposed the punishment of dismissal against the petitioner. After the said dismissal order was issued, the petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No.108/1996 alleging unfair labour practice under Item 1 of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Union and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act, 1971, in the matter of his dismissal from the services of the respondentCorporation. The said Complaint ULP was partly allowed and a declaration as regards the unfair labour practice committed by the respondentCorporation was issued and the respondentCorporation was directed to reinstate the petitioner. However, in so far as the back wages were concerned, the Labour Court relying upon the judgment of the Apex Court reported in 1995 Vol. II Labour Law Journal 62 in the matter of M/s. Mukund Engineer Works vs. Bansi Purshottam, held that since the misconduct was proved, the petitioner would not be entitled to back wages. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment' and order dated 25/11/2005 whereby the back wages were denied to him, the petitioner filed a Revision Application under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, which Revision came to be numbered as Revision (ULP) No.44/2007. The gamut of challenge was the denial of back wages to the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the said judgment' and order dated 25/11/2005 whereby the back wages were denied to him, the petitioner filed a Revision Application under Section 44 of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971, which Revision came to be numbered as Revision (ULP) No.44/2007. The gamut of challenge was the denial of back wages to the petitioner. The Industrial Court in Revision held that the grant of back wages cannot be granted, as a matter of course once reinstatement is ordered, and since there is no material on record that the petitioner was unemployed and since serious charges levelled against the petitioner were proved, the Industrial Court did not deem it fit to interfere with the order passed by the Labour Court, denying the back wages. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 5. The learned counsel for the petitioner sought to rely upon the judgment of a Division Bench of this Court reported in 2009 II CLR 866 in the matter of Ramkrishna Shivram Gadekar v. Board of Trustees of the Port of Mumbai & Anr., wherein the facts were that the workman concerned was acquitted in a criminal trial and since the material so far as the criminal trial and the department proceedings in that case were admittedly the same, the Division Bench in that case remanded the matter back to the Labour Court for consideration of the aspect of back wages. 6. In so far as the present matter is concerned, as indicated herein above the petitioner was chargesheeted under Items 11, 15 and 39 of the Discipline and Appeal Procedure of the respondentCorporation. It is trite that the standard of proof required in a Departmental Enquiry stands apart from the standard of proof required in a criminal trial, in so far as departmental proceedings are concerned, the principle of preponderance of probabilities is applicable, once that is so and considering that the charges in the instant case have been held to be proved against the petitioner, the denial of back wages by both the Courts below on the basis of the material that was before them, cannot be faulted with. No case for interference is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. Petition dismissed.