ORDER : Heard the parties. 2. Petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for payment of entire back wages for the period 4.12.2003 to 25.2.2008. FACTUAL MATRIX 3. The petitioner is the permanent employee of BCCL, having his employee No. 01144088 and has been posted as Mining Sirdar at Moonidih Project. The petitioner has been rendering his services to the satisfaction of the respondents. On 27.2.2000, a police case has been registered under Sections 498-A, 302, 201, 120-B of the Indian Penal Code as Putki P.S. Case No. 32 of 2000 against the petitioner, his wife and his son, on the basis of fardbeyan of Kashinath Mahto (Samadhi) of the petitioner, who alleged that on 25.2.2000 his Samadhi (petitioner) was informed to him that his daughter is missing since last night and alleged that the son of the petitioner (who is the husband of his daughter) used to torture her daughter due to non-fulfillment of demand of dowry. He suspected that his daughter has been killed by dowry. The charges were framed under Sections 302 120-B. 201 and 304-B IPC and 3, 4 of the Dowry Prohibition Act in S.T. No. 17/01. After conclusion of the trial, the learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad found the petitioner, his wife and son Mahanand Mahto guilty of the charges and convicted them under Section 304-B IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years vide his order dated 6.6.2003. On the basis of the aforesaid conviction the respondent-BCCL charge-sheeted the petitioner vide his letter No. 2235 dated 9.9.2003 and was directed to explain in writing as to why suitable disciplinary action should not be taken against him. After receipt of the show cause, the petitioner filed a writ application being W.P.(S) No. 5476 of 2003 before this Court, challenging the order of suspension as he was convicted in a totally private complaint which has got no nexus with his service condition and order of conviction was also challenged in Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 2003. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.11.2003 disposed of the writ application with observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to subsistence allowances regularly and in the event, if the order of conviction is set aside, he will be entitled to full salary in accordance with law. The Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 18.11.2003 disposed of the writ application with observation that the petitioner shall be entitled to subsistence allowances regularly and in the event, if the order of conviction is set aside, he will be entitled to full salary in accordance with law. The respondent No. 4 issued a letter contained in letter No. 2974 dated 3.12.2003 to the petitioner mentioning therein, that he has been removed from the service of the company. It is stated that during the pendency of the appeal, the petitioner was granted bail in Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 2003. After hearing the matter at length, vide Judgment dated 29.8.2006, the Hon'ble High Court was pleased to acquit the petitioner and his wife from the charges and discharged them from the liabilities of their bail bonds and the appeal was allowed. In view of the acquittal by this Court, the petitioner submitted a representation through the registered Union INMOSA (Indian National Mine Official Supervisory Staff Association) and requested for his reinstatement in service with full back-wages in view of the fact that the Judgment of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, Dhanbad in S.T. No. 17/01 has been set aside by the Hon'ble High Court in Cri. Appeal No. 796 of 2003 vide Judgment dated 29.8.2006. The petitioner was also prayed for payment of the salary for the period 15.9.2003 to 3.12.2003 for the period, he was put under suspension. It is alleged that the respondent No. 5 issued an order contained in Ref. No. 751 dated 26.2.2008 whereby, the petitioner has been reinstated in service w.e.f. 25.2.2008. The petitioner has been deprived of his back wages for the period he remained under suspension as well as the period he was kept out from the service due to removal on the basis of the unconscionable terms of agreement dated 21.2.2008. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Prasad submits that in view of Clauses 8 and 9 of the memo of settlement and order dated 18.11.2003 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5476 of 2003, the petitioner is entitled for the payment of back-wages. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. Sanjay Prasad submits that in view of Clauses 8 and 9 of the memo of settlement and order dated 18.11.2003 passed by this Court in W.P.(S) No. 5476 of 2003, the petitioner is entitled for the payment of back-wages. Learned counsel further submits that the actions on the part of the respondents are highly illegal, arbitrary and unconstitutional in denying the back-wages of the petitioner for the period 4.12.2003 to 25.2.2008 which is the period, the petitioner has been kept out of service on the ground of conviction in criminal case, though the payment of the back-wages to the petitioner be paid after quashment of the conviction. 5. On the other hand, counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. Learned counsel, Mr. Indrajeet Sinha appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the prayer of the petitioner and submits that the petitioner being a workman should avail the alternative remedies of Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the settled principles of law regarding 'no work no pay', the petitioner is not entitled for any payment of the period claimed. In view of the order of conviction in criminal case, the petitioner was dismissed from service w.e.f. 3/4.12.2003 in terms of Clause 26.1.19 vide Order No. 2974 dated 4.12.2004. Learned counsel further submits that in view of memorandum of settlement in terms of Industrial Disputes Act, no back-wages would be payable to the petitioner. Learned counsel accordingly, submits that public policy of no work no pay applicable in the instant case, the petitioner, who has not work for the entire period, is not entitled to get back-wages for the period he is claiming for and his claim is absolutely illegal, arbitrary and baseless. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of view that it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was convicted in criminal case and after conclusion of the trial, he was honorably acquitted in the criminal appeal. This Court has held that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against this petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 2003. In the present case the petitioner was acquitted by the Appellate Court. There can be no manner of doubt that the said acquittal would revert back and the initial order of conviction would stand obliterated. This Court has held that the prosecution has not been able to establish the charges against this petitioner in Criminal Appeal No. 796 of 2003. In the present case the petitioner was acquitted by the Appellate Court. There can be no manner of doubt that the said acquittal would revert back and the initial order of conviction would stand obliterated. On that basis there can be no manner of doubt that the substratum of the cause that had led to respondent's dismissal/discharge in the present case had ceased to exist. The same would entitle him to be reinstated in service and same has been duly performed by respondents. However, the grant of back-wages is not automatic and such an entitlement has to be judged in the context of totality of the facts of a given case. His subsequent acquittal though obliterates his conviction but does not operate to retrospectively wipe out the legal consequences of the conviction. The entitlement of the petitioner to back-wages has to be judged on the aforesaid basis. His reinstatement undoubtedly became due following his acquittal and RS such the petitioner is entitled to back-wages from the date of lodging the demand of the same for his acquittal until the date of his reinstatement. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paragraph Nos. 24 and 25 in case of Fisheries Department, State of Uttar Pradesh vs. Charan Singh reported in (2015) 8 SCC 150 has held as under: 24. Thus, the principle of "no work no pay" as observed by this Court in a catena of cases does not have any significance to the fact situation of the present case as the termination of the services of the workman from the post of Tubewell Operator is erroneous in law in the first place, as held by us in view of the above-stated reasons. 25. The respondent and his family members have been suffering for more than four decades as the source of their livelihood has been arbitrarily deprived by the appellant. Thereby, the right to liberty and livelihood guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been denied to the respondent by the appellant as held in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corp., wherein this Court has held thus: (SCC pp. 571-72, para 32) 7. Thereby, the right to liberty and livelihood guaranteed under Articles 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India have been denied to the respondent by the appellant as held in Olga Tellis vs. Bombay Municipal Corp., wherein this Court has held thus: (SCC pp. 571-72, para 32) 7. In view of the settled principles of law and in view of the Catena of Judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled for back-wages from the date of he had lodged the demand after his acquittal i.e. 22.11.2006, until the date of his reinstatement. With the aforesaid observation, the writ petition stands allowed.