JUDGMENT :

S.S. SUNDAR, J.

Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying to issue a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the records relating to the award passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 2 of 2009, dated 23.10.2013 and to quash the same and consequently, to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages and to award costs.

1. This Writ Petition is filed for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to quash the impugned award passed by the first respondent in I.D. No. 2 of 2009, dated 23.10.2013, confirming the punishment that was imposed on the petitioner and to direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service with back wages.

2. Heard Mr. S.K. Mani, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, Mr. M. Linga Durai, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondents 1 and 3 and Mr. B. Jameelarasu, learned Counsel appearing for second respondent.

3. Brief facts, that are necessary for the purpose of disposal of the Writ Petition, are as follows:

3.1. The petitioner was appointed as a Supervisor in the Retail Vending Shop of TASMAC on 04.12.2003 in Shop No. 10272 at Woraiyur. It is stated by the respondents that the Auditor, namely, M/s. Ghosh Khanna and Co. Chennai, conducted an audit in the TASMAC Shop, in which the petitioner was employed. The audit inspection was on 27.12.2004. As a result of the audit, it was found that there was a shortage of Rs. 39,775/- for a period from 01.10.2004 to 30.11.2004 and a further sum of Rs. 18,816/- was found to be in short for the period from 11.12.2004 to 27.12.2004. It is admitted that the petitioner himself remitted Rs. 18,778/- as against the sum of Rs. 18,816/- found to be the value for the shortage of goods.

3.2. It is stated by the respondents that the petitioner failed to remit the shortage amount of Rs. 39,775/- even though, he accepted the amount that was arrived at as shortage during the audit. For the misconduct alleged to have been committed by the petitioner, the petitioner was terminated from the service. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute, challenging the order of termination. The Tribunal confirmed the order of punishment after elaborately considering the facts in detail. Aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, the above Writ Petition is filed.

4. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that there was no shortage and that the whole case was wrongly proceeded as if petitioner has admitted the charge, even though there was no actual loss or shortage. It is the case of the petitioner before this Court that the respondents have not produced any documents like details of the payment of money through challans, P.V. Report, etc. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner was not actually employed in the supervisory capacity.

5. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner relied upon a judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court reported in 1974 (1) SC 242 and submitted that the disciplinary authority as well as the Labour Court have failed to consider that there was no admission in relation to any of the charges against the petitioner and that the Labour Court, without any iota of evidence, accepted the case of the respondents, as if the petitioner has voluntarily admitted the shortage.

6. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner further tried to demonstrate before this Court that the accounts of the petitioner would clearly show that the respondents have no material or accounts to prove that the shortage was on account of any misconduct committed by the petitioner. Stating that the departmental enquiry was a farce one and that the whole case was built upon the so called admission of petitioner, the learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was not even given an opportunity to substantiate his case.

7. Very strangely, the learned Counsel appearing for the pe