HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 12940 OF 1999. DATED 9TH FEBRUARY, 2010. BETWEEN M.S.M. SINGH …PETITIONER AND National Cooperation Consumers Federation Limited, Deepali, New Delhi,rep. By its Managing Director, and, ors. … RESPONDENTS. HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU WRIT PETITION No. 12940 OF 1999. ORDER: Heard both sides. This Writ Petition is directed against an Award dated 4.4.1998 made in I.D.No. 78 of 1995, on the ﬁle of the Presiding Oﬃcer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad, whereunder and whereby, the claim petition ﬁled by the petitioner under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 praying to set aside the termination order dated 7.6.1994 of the ﬁrst respondent and consequently reinstate him into service with full backwages and all other attendant benefits was dismissed. Petitioner herein is the Workman. Respondents are the Management. It appears that initially the petitioner was appointed as Stenographer in the year 1977 in New Delhi. Subsequently in the year 1981 he was transferred to the second respondent branch at Hyderbad as Field Oﬃcer. While working as such in the second respondent branch, on 27.6.1991, the petitioner was issued with a Memorandum of Charge calling for his explanation as to why action should not be taken for not taking steps to liquidate the stocks and sale of old stocks. The petitioner submitted his explanation on 18.7.1991. Having not satisﬁed with his explanation, a detail enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Oﬃcer found the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him. On the basis of the ﬁndings recorded by the Enquiry Oﬃcer, Disciplinary Authority by an order dated 7.6.1994 dismissed the petitioner from service. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute vide I.D.No. 78 of 1995, before the Labour Court- I, Hyderabad, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. It is the case of the petitioner that it was only the Branch Manager who had taken decision about the sale of the goods and he was in no way concerned with the alleged charges. Though there was no evidence placed before the Enquiry Oﬃcer, petitioner was held guilty of the charges. Even the Labour Court has not looked into the matter properly and in a mechanical way conﬁrmed the conclusion reached by the Enquiry and Disciplinary authorities. The Labour Court observed that though there is doubt as to the direct involvement of the petitioner, there is laxity of supervision on the part of the petitioner, in selling zips at the retail counter, and that the Enquiry Oﬃcer was right, in holding that the collection of the amount from Sri Veer Singh to oﬀ-set the loss made would clearly prove, that the petitioner was aware of the collection of 0.50 ps extra for each zip. Though the Labour Court opined that there is no incriminating material, the charge deemed to have been partly proved against the petitioner. It was further curiously held that the Enquiry Oﬃcer and Disciplinary Authority did not commit any error in ﬁnding the petitioner guilty of the charges levelled against him and the consequential punishment of removal from service. In that view of the matter, I am of the opinion that the ﬁnding of the Labour Court does not stand scrutiny of law. There is no iota of evidence to show that the petitioner was involved in the misappropriation etc.,. except saying some laxity of supervision on his part. This misconduct appears to have been committed during the period from 9.3.1981 to 4.5.1990. Therefore it is diﬃcult to accept the ﬁndings recorded by the Enquiry Authority as well as the Labour Court without there being any evidence to show either directly or indirectly the petitioner was involved in the charges levelled against him. Further the details of each year were not furnished. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the order of removal passed by the ﬁrst respondent as conﬁrmed by the Labour Court are illegal and arbitrary and therefore, the same are liable to be set aside. Accordingly the termination order dated 7.6.1994 passed by the ﬁrst respondent and the Award dated 4.4.1998 made in I.D.No. 78 of 1995, on the ﬁle of the Presiding Oﬃcer, Labour Court-I, Hyderabad are set aside. It is made clear that the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service, with continuity of service, and all other attendant beneﬁts, but without backwages. The Writ Petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ------------------------------------ JUSTICE C.V. RAMULU DATED 9T H FEBRUARY, 2010. Msnr.