ORDER : P. Sathasivam, J.—The Special Officer, Pollachi Co-operative Marketing Society Ltd., aggrieved by the award of the Labour Court, Coimbatore, dated November 24, 1994, made in I.D. No. 415 of 1989, ordering reinstatement of the second respondent with back wages has filed Writ Petition No. 16171 of 1995 to quash the same on various grounds. 2. The second respondent - S. Uma Maheswari, has filed Writ Petition No. 821 of 1998 questioning the award, dated November 14, 1997, made in I.D. No. 121 of 1996 on the file of the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Coimbatore. 3. Since the issue raised in both the writ petitions are interconnected, they are being disposed of by the following common order. 4. For convenience, I shall refer the parties as arrayed in Writ Petition No. 16171 of 1995. 5. The case of the petitioner-society is briefly stated hereunder: The society had many fair price shops situated in various villages in and around Pollachi. In the fair price shops essential commodities such as, rice, sugar, palm oil, wheat, kerosene were sold to the villagers under the Public Distribution System. The entire sales and accounts are controlled by the salesman concerned. There were no other person in the fair price shop to supervise the sales. As the salesman was the person who was in charge of the fair price shop, the liability for any shortage in the commodities was fastened on the salesman. The second respondent was appointed in 1984 as a sales girl. Due to exigencies, she was working as a sales girl in various fair price shops run by the society. When she was working in various shops, there was a shortage of commodities on a regular basis. Every shop had a liability register, which would indicate the value of the commodity entrusted. At the head office individual liability registers were maintained for every employee, as and when stocks were transferred entries would be made in the liability register and when the employee remits the sale proceeds, then the liability would be correspondingly reduced. When the second respondent was working in various villages, she had caused shortage (details have been furnished in Paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit). Accordingly, on June 11, 1988, a show-cause notice was issued to the second respondent pointing out that she had caused shortage of stock worth Rs. 8,447.16. When the second respondent was working in various villages, she had caused shortage (details have been furnished in Paras 4 and 5 of the affidavit). Accordingly, on June 11, 1988, a show-cause notice was issued to the second respondent pointing out that she had caused shortage of stock worth Rs. 8,447.16. She admitted her liability and she had repaid a sum of Rs. 1,000 and that a sum of Rs. 7,447.16 was outstanding. Similar notices were issued for shortage in the other shops. A domestic enquiry was conducted. Based on the report of the enquiry officer, she was terminated from her service by order dated November 15, 1988. The second respondent raised a dispute challenging the termination and the same was taken on file by the first respondent as Industrial Dispute No. 415 of 1989. By award, dated August 10, 1993, the first respondent after holding that the enquiry conducted against the second respondent was not in accordance with the principles of natural justice and ordered reinstatement with back wages. Based on the said award, the second respondent sent a letter to the petitioner, seeking employment. Petitioner-society in their proceedings, dated April 15, 1995, has reinstated the second respondent with immediate effect. She was asked to report before the Special Officer, on April 26, 1995. On that date she was served with an order terminating her from service for want of vacancy. Against the said order, the second respondent raised an industrial dispute, which resulted in Industrial Dispute No. 121 of 1996 before the Labour Court, Coimbatore. The Labour Court after holding that there was no violation of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act (in short the Act) and the order of termination could not be termed to be illegal, dismissed Industrial Dispute No. 121 1996. Against the said award, the second respondent - Uma Maheswari, preferred Writ Petition No. 821 of 1998. 6. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Society as well as the second respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after pointing out the admission of an employee second respondent, the Labour Court committed an error in rejecting the case of the management and ordered reinstatement with back wages. 6. Heard the learned counsel for petitioner Society as well as the second respondent. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner after pointing out the admission of an employee second respondent, the Labour Court committed an error in rejecting the case of the management and ordered reinstatement with back wages. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for second respondent would contend that the Labour Court is fully justified in ordering reinstatement with back wages in I.D.No. 415 of 1989 and the same Court failed to consider her termination for want of vacancy as not a bona fide one. 8. I have carefully considered the rival submissions. 9. It is the case of the petitioner-society that the second respondent alone was responsible for the shortage in the fair price shops in which she worked. It is seen from the materials placed that in many instances amount paid by her were not credited in the relevant accounts. For instance, in respect of Shop No. 2, Kottur, though the second respondent had paid Rs. 3,900 the entire amount was not credited. On the other hand, after giving credit to Rs. 1,000 the balance amount was credited in her old accounts. It is further seen that the Society itself had accepted that there were mistakes and discrepancies in their accounts (vide Para. 16 of the order of the Labour Court). After analysing their other instances, the Labour Court has concluded that, in the absence of definite charge against the second respondent, the society had taken action against her and in spite of paying the amount, the same were not credited in its entirety. It is also seen that though the auditor has submitted his report in 1986-1987 in respect of Kottur Shop, no action was taken. After analysing all the materials, the Labour Court has concluded that the society failed to establish their case, as claimed in the charge-memo and if the auditor's report as well as the amount repaid by the second respondent is concerned, there is no need for her to pay any further amount. In the light of the said factual conclusion, which is based on appreciation of acceptable oral and documentary evidence, I do not find any good reason to differ from the same. 10. In the light of the said factual conclusion, which is based on appreciation of acceptable oral and documentary evidence, I do not find any good reason to differ from the same. 10. It is not disputed that this Court is not an appellate authority and in the absence of illegality or irregularity the factual finding of the Labour Court cannot be lightly interfered by this Court. On the other hand, after going through the materials, I am in agreement with the factual conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court. Though it is brought to my notice that the second respondent herself admitted the shortage in certain shops, as rightly concluded by the Labour Court, the domestic enquiry was not conducted in a fair and proper manner. For instance, when the second respondent was admitted in the hospital in the advance stage of pregnancy, charge memo was served and she was asked to submit her explanation. In such a circumstance, as rightly contended, she had no other option except to surrender to the claim made by the Society. All those aspects have been duly considered by the Labour Court and found that the petitioner Society has failed to establish their claim. 11. Apart from the factual details it is also admitted that in addition to the second respondent herein, the society has charge sheeted the other four senior persons working in other societies and the society has not taken any action to challenge the order passed by the Labour Court, in respect of those persons. 12. Pursuant to the award of the Labour Court in I.D. No. 415 of 1995, the second respondent made a representation to join duty. Having entertained her, on the same day her services were terminated on the ground of want of vacancy. As rightly contended, the said action of the society cannot be accepted, as it is not a bona fide one. I am satisfied that the order of termination on the ground of want of vacancy is only a ruse to victimise her and to avoid the valid award passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 415 of 1989. 13. In the light of what is stated above, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 415 of 1989, dated November 24, 1994; accordingly, Writ Petition No. 16171 of 1995 is dismissed. 13. In the light of what is stated above, I am in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 415 of 1989, dated November 24, 1994; accordingly, Writ Petition No. 16171 of 1995 is dismissed. In the light of the said conclusion, the award of the very same Labour Court in I.D. No. 121 of 1996, dated November 14, 1997, and the consequential order of the second respondent, dated April 26, 1995, are quashed. The second respondent herein is entitled to reinstatement with continuity of service with 50 per cent back wages. 14. Net result, Writ Petition No. 16171 of 1995 is dismissed; Writ Petition No. 821 of 1998 is allowed to the extent mentioned above. 15. No costs. Consequently, connected WPMP and WVMP are closed.