(Per Ramesh Ranganathan, J.)

Aggrieved by the order in W.P. Nos. 8088 of 1999 and 7722 of 1999 dated 11-07-2005 whereby the punishment awarded by the Labour Court, Guntur in I.D. No. 73 of 1988 dated 25-01-1999, was modified, the present appeals are filed by Cotton Corporation of India, the Employer. Questioning the award in I.D.No.73 of 1988, the appellant herein had filed W.P. No. 7722 of 1999, and the respondent workman had tiled W.P. No. 8088 of 1999.

2. The respondent-workman, a Cotton purchase officer, was issued a charge sheet on 28-12-1984 and the charges levelled against him therein read thus:

1. That - Shri U. Chinnappa while functioning as Cotton Purchase Officer and posted as Center In-charge at Gudhihattanur center during the cotton season 1983-84 did not work with full devotion to duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation by not conducting/taking experimental outturns as per the guidelines issued, and he has based his purchases with unrealistic outturns resulting in wide difference between budgeted and actual paid hard by Rs.243/- per candy.

ii. That Shri U. Chinnappa while functioning as Cotton Purchase Officer and posted as Center Incharge at Gudihattanur Center during the cotton season 1983-84 did not work with full devotion to duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation by not maintaining heap-wise results. He was instructed to maintain heap-wise for guidance for future purchase, but contrary to it he willfully neglected the instructions and continued purchases without maintaining heap-wise results resulting into

abnormal shortages, and high padthar thereby resulting huge loss to the Corporation.

iii. That Shri U. Chinnappa while functioning as Cotton Purchase Officer and posted as Center In-charge at Gudihattanur center during the cotton season 1983-84 did not work with full devotion to duty and acted in a manner prejudicial to the interests of the Corporation and did not work with responsibility, which resulted into high percentage of processing shortages by way of gins to process, and wide difference between the budgeted and actual podha to the extent of Rs. 243/- per candy in case of H-4 variety.

3. An enquiry was conducted into these charges and, on being found guilty thereof, the respondent-workman was imposed the punishment of removal from service. The appeal preferred by him was dismissed vide proceedings dated 08-12-1987. His mercy petition was also rejected on 05-01-1988. Aggrieved thereby the respondent-workman approached the labour Court, Guntur under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act.

No oral evidence was adduced both on behalf of the appellant and the respondent herein. Exs.M-1 to M-5 were, however, marked as exhibits by the Appellant herein.

4. Before the Labour Court, the respondent workman contended that the punishment imposed was discriminatory and while 15 others, whom he specifically named as having been charged of the same misconduct, were continued in service he was imposed the punishment of dismissal from service.· The appellant herein contended that the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act were inapplicable, that they had lost confidence in the respondent-workman on account of his continuous misconduct and dereliction of duty and that his negligence had resulted in heavy financial loss to the corporation.

5. The Labour Court examined the contents of the enquiry report and took note of the findings of the enquiry officer that he was not convinceg that the respondent-workman had taken all necessary precautions to protect the stocks from calamity of nature and while he had taken some steps such as addressing letters, these steps were not sufficient. The Labour Court held that, by taking all necessary precautions, the difference in actual and budgeted padthar could have been reduced to some extent. After perusal of the enquiry report, the Labour Court held that none of the charges framed against the respondent wor