LAWS(APH)-2015-9-21

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR A.P. STATE HANDLOOM WEAVERS COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. AND ORS. Vs. CH. PRASAD RAO AND ORS.

Decided On September 01, 2015
The Managing Director A.P. State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd. And Ors. Appellant
V/S
Ch. Prasad Rao And Ors. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE subject matter of all these three writ petitions is common. W.P. No. 10729 of 2011 is filed by the Managing Director of the Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Limited (for short, 'the Society'), aggrieved by Award dt. 26.11.2010, in I.D. No. 33 of 1997, on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court -I, Hyderabad. W.P. No. 23040 of 2015 is filed by respondent No. 1 in W.P. No. 10729 of 2011 for modification of Award dt. 26.11.2010 in I.D. No. 33 of 1997. W.P. No. 18900 of 2015 is filed by the same respondent for a mandamus to declare the inaction of the respondents in paying back wages under Award dt. 26.11.2010 in I.D. No. 33 of 1997.

(2.) AS the issue before the Court is very limited, previous background of the case is unnecessary. It will suffice to note that respondent No. 1 (Assistant manager) along with three others were dismissed from service on the ground that the verification of stocks in the showroom belonging to the Society and run by respondent No. 1 along with three others, showed shortage of stocks worth Rs. 4,02,973/ -. On a preliminary enquiry report dt. 14.11.1991, a charge memo was issued with five charges. The charge memo reads as under:

(3.) AT the hearing, Mr. Raj Kumar Rudra, learned counsel for the petitioners, submitted that the Labour Court having rendered a categorical finding that the evidence of M.W.1 coupled with Ex. M.1, i.e., the letter dt. 28.11.1990 sent by the Divisional Office to the Managing Director of the Society show that there was shortage of stock deficit of Rs. 4,02,973/ - and respondent No. 1 along with three others being in charge of the showroom, all of them jointly are guilty as alleged under Charge No. 1, committed a serious error in exonerating respondent No. 1 only on the ground that the criminal court has acquitted him and this Court in Criminal Appeal No. 975 of 1994 has confirmed the said judgment.