ORDER : 1. These present appeals arise from the order dated 12.05.2016, passed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in LPA Nos. 143 and 144 of 2015, filed by the respondent, Mother Dairy. By this order, the High Court allowed their appeals and set aside the Single Judge's order dated 06.02.2015, in Writ Petition No. 6311 of 2014, which had directed the workman-appellant's reinstatement with full back wages and continuity of service. Aggrieved by this decision, the appellant filed Review Petition Nos. 369 and 370 of 2016, which were dismissed by the High Court on 10.02.2017. 2. The relevant facts of the case are as follows: the appellant was employed by Mother Dairy from 1984 on a monthly salary of Rs.1,600/-. He was eventually promoted to Senior Superintendent (Marketing) and the last drawn salary was Rs.7,500/-- per month. On 19.11.1999, the appellant was suspended and on 27.11.1999 he was served with a chargesheet which alleged that he firstly, opened a current account with a bank in a fictious name - "Arun Kumar" and had dealings with Mother Dairy in connection with milk supply to the Insulated Container and secured pecuniary benefits which was a grave act of misconduct of engaging in private work or trade for profit while still in service of the Dairy. Secondly, that he had signed two agreements and obtained two cheques in a fictious name - "Arun" and committed misconduct. Thirdly, that he signed certain agreements in connection with the "Insulated Container" in the name of "Arun" and signed as one of the witnesses; thereby he mispresented facts to Mother Diary and committed a grave act of misconduct with bad faith towards the employer/Dairy. In view of the above, the workman had "committed a grave act of misconduct of fraud and dishonesty in dealing with the Dairy's business." Enquiry Officer was appointed and after completion of enquiry, the appellant was found guilty and subsequently on 22.07.2003, Mother Dairy dismissed the appellant from service. 2.1. The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. Meanwhile, the respondent lodged a FIR under Sections 419/410/468/471 IPC. The Labour Court vide interim order dated 21.08.2008 held that the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly and upheld its findings. The appellant challenged this in Writ Petition No.168/2013 before the High Court which was dismissed on 11.01. The appellant raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court. Meanwhile, the respondent lodged a FIR under Sections 419/410/468/471 IPC. The Labour Court vide interim order dated 21.08.2008 held that the domestic enquiry was conducted fairly and upheld its findings. The appellant challenged this in Writ Petition No.168/2013 before the High Court which was dismissed on 11.01. 2013.The Labour Court continued to hear the industrial dispute on the issue of quantum of punishment and, in the FIR, lodged against the appellant, the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate held him not guilty vide order dated 08.05.2013 and acquitted him. This was considered by the Labour Court and vide order dated 07.07.2014 it directed respondent to reinstate the appellant while denying him back wages. 2.2. The respondent filed Writ Petition No.6311 of 2014 challenging this order of the Labour Court and the appellant filed Writ Petition No.8383 of 2014 challenging the same. The Single Judge vide common order dated 06.02.2015 dismissed the Writ Petition preferred by the respondent and allowed Writ Petition No.8383 of 2014 filed by the appellant. The Single Judge directed reinstatement of the appellant with full back wages and continuity of services holding that the domestic enquiry was bad in law. 2.3. Thereafter, the respondent filed LPA Nos.143 and 144 of 2015 which have been allowed by the Division Bench of the High Court vide impugned order dated 12.05.2016 and the penalty imposed upon the appellant was restored. The appellant filed Review Petition Nos.369 and 370 of 2016 which was dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 10.02.2017 holding there is no error apparent from the face of the record. 2.4. The Division Bench, in its impugned order, set aside the Labour Court and Single Judge's decision and reinstated the penalty of dismissal on the appellant. It held that the fairness of the domestic inquiry had been previously adjudicated upon by the Labour Court vide an interim order which was upheld by the High Court in its order dated 11.01.2013. Therefore, the Labour Court had erred in reconsidering the merits of the materials placed before it. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 3. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the enquiry was not conducted fairly as the same was not based on the material placed on record. Therefore, the Labour Court had erred in reconsidering the merits of the materials placed before it. Aggrieved, the appellant is before us. 3. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. 4. On behalf of the appellant it has been submitted that the enquiry was not conducted fairly as the same was not based on the material placed on record. Further, the punishment of dismissal is highly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct. The management had lodged a criminal case against the appellant on the same allegation registered as FIR No.149/2000 at Police Station Mandawali under Sections 419, 420, 468 and 471 IPC. The Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 08.05.2013 acquitted the appellant. The said case was registered on the same allegations for which the appellant was dismissed after the domestic enquiry. The Labour Court has observed in its order that an acquittal in a criminal case would not automatically result into setting aside the findings of the domestic enquiry. However, where the facts are the same for both, an acquittal can be taken into consideration. 5. It was further submitted that the appellant's acquittal was primarily based on the testimony of his cousin, the real Arun Kumar, who appeared as a defense witness. The Trial Court noted a strong resemblance between them, making it difficult for third parties to distinguish them. As a result, the key allegation that the appellant misrepresented himself as Arun Kumar and affixed his photograph on bank documents was rendered untenable. Arun Kumar was found to be an existing person who was running a dairy and had previously been allocated an insulated milk container by Mother Dairy. Additionally, the handwriting expert's report regarding the signatures on bank documents was inconclusive. The Labour Court, acknowledging these findings, opined that while misconduct could not be entirely ruled out, a lenient approach was warranted. Moreover, it was observed that the misconduct did not result in any pecuniary loss to the management. Therefore, the Labour Court set aside the appellant's dismissal and ordered his reinstatement without back wages. It was thus submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge be restored. 6. The respondent, Mother Dairy, on the other hand has opposed the appellant's reinstatement, arguing that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings differs from that in disciplinary proceedings. It was thus submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment of the learned Single Judge be restored. 6. The respondent, Mother Dairy, on the other hand has opposed the appellant's reinstatement, arguing that the standard of proof in criminal proceedings differs from that in disciplinary proceedings. In criminal cases, the principle of proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt is followed, whereas in a domestic inquiry, the standard of proof is based on the preponderance of probabilities. It was thus submitted that the appellant having been found guilty in the departmental inquiry, confirmed up to the High Court, the Division Bench rightly upheld the punishment of dismissal. The appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. After perusal of these orders and the materials before us, we agree with the final findings of the Labour Court. It is a fact that the appellant was acquitted of all charges in the criminal case instituted against him. Even that does not guarantee him an automatic re-instatement, in the particular facts of this case, it is clear that there is some doubt regarding the allegations against the appellant. Therefore, the decision rendered by the Labour Court rightly takes into account all relevant factors while holding that they cannot confirm that the appellant did not indulge in any misconduct at all but looking at the uncertainty regarding the allegations, it has reinstated him without any back wages. This is a fair order when you consider all the aspects. 8. Though the appellant seeks reinstatement of the Single Judge's order, it is noted that he was found guilty in the internal inquiry, despite being acquitted in the criminal proceedings. Since the inquiry has been deemed fair, some form of punishment is warranted. Accordingly, we uphold the Labour Court's order reinstating the appellant. However, we clarify that we are reinstating the appellant with continuity of service, although it is explicitly clarified that he will not be entitled to back-wages. 9. The reasoning provided in the impugned order for re-imposing the penalty states that the fairness of the domestic enquiry had already been adjudicated upon by the High Court on 11.01.2013. However, the Division Bench did not consider that the order of acquittal dated 08.05.2013 was not before the Court at that stage of adjudication. 10. Upon an examination of the orders and materials placed before us, we find merit in the final determination of the Labour Court. However, the Division Bench did not consider that the order of acquittal dated 08.05.2013 was not before the Court at that stage of adjudication. 10. Upon an examination of the orders and materials placed before us, we find merit in the final determination of the Labour Court. The acquittal of the appellant in the criminal proceedings, though not an automatic ground for reinstatement, casts significant doubt on the allegations levelled against him. While the fairness of the domestic inquiry was upheld, the Labour Court, took a balanced approach by acknowledging the uncertainty surrounding the charges while refraining from entirely absolving the appellant of misconduct. The decision to reinstate the appellant without back wages reflects a equitable resolution, ensuring fairness and proportionality of punishment. 11. In light of the above, the appeals are allowed. The impugned judgment of the Division Bench as also that of the Single Judge Bench, are set aside and the order dated 07.07.2014 passed by the Labour Court is restored. The appellant would be entitled to reinstatement with notional benefits and continuity of services, without back wages. 12. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.