The Employment Appeals Tribunal made the order after finding Marvin Moore’s dismissal was not fair and was also procedurally unfair.

The dismissal in September 2011 came two months after Mr Moore pleaded guilty to a charge of the possession of drugs with intent to supply.

A charge-hand in a Tesco store, he had received an eight-month suspended jail term for the offence.

He had started working for the retailer in 1996 and had an unblemished employment record for more than 15 years before his dismissal in September 2011.

On informing Tesco in August 2011 about the conviction, the retailer placed him on suspension with pay pending further investigation. On September 26 that year, he was dismissed on the grounds of gross misconduct as a conviction by a court for any serious criminal offence was considered damaging to the company and conduct which brought the retailer’s good name into disrepute.

The EAT report on the case notes that when charged with the drugs offence, Mr Moore had informed his then-store manager and had continued his employment with the firm.

Furthermore, the report also records a Tesco personnel manager provided Mr Moore with a character reference for the court case.

Mr Moore had appealed his dismissal internally and a manager of another Tesco outlet oversaw the appeal. He upheld a decision to dismiss as his conviction “could easily bring the company into disrepute”.

During cross-examination at the EAT hearing in Dublin which took place over two days, the manager (appeal officer) confirmed he did not find evidence that customers or member of the public were aware of Mr Moore’s conviction but he “considered how it would be viewed it if came into the public domain”.

The appeal officer confirmed he did travel to Mr Moore’s unnamed Tesco store but did not speak to a store manager, personnel manager or anyone else at the store over the matter.

In its ruling, the EAT ruled it “does not find the dismissal, in this instance, was fair”. It also found the dismissal was procedurally unfair. It also said “the evidence of the Appeal Officer regarding the appeal procedures fell well short of what is normally accepted as being fair”.

The EAT noted that “not enough regard was given by the company to the 15 years unblemished employment records the claimant held with the company”.