JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The hereinafter extracted reference has been, under, the impugned award, hence answered against the petitioner. ?Whether action of the employer i.e. the Chairman/Manager, M/S the Kangra District Wholesale co-operative Consumer and Marketing Federation Ltd. Dharamshala, Distt. Kangra, H.P. to not regularize Sh. Ramesh Chand S/o Sh. Dalip Singh as Sales-Man in the regular pay-scale of Rs. 400-600/- from the date when Sh. Krishan Chand, Junior to him was regularized, is proper and justified? If not, what relief of service benefits, compensation and arrear of back wages the above worker is entitled to?? 2. The petitioner being aggrieved therefrom, hence, has preferred the instant petition, before this Court. 3. Even though, a reading of the affidavit comprised in Ex.RW-/A, tendered into evidence, during, the course, of, the examination-in-chief by RW-1 (Brahan Kumar), (i) makes clear depictions therein qua the services of one Krishan Chand being regularized, (ii) given, his satisfactorily performing the avocations of his employment, (iii) and, he has further communicated therein, qua, the services of the petitioner, and, of Ashok Kumar, and, of Sarwan Kumar, not, being regularized, given, all of them being found to be not satisfactorily performing, the, callings of their respective evocations. The afore echoings are anvilled upon the petitioner, in the years referred in paragraph 3 of Ex.RW-1/A, making embezzlements of money's comprised, in, a sum of Rs.72212.09/-. 4. On the afore anvil, the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P (for short, ?the Tribunal) hence answered the reference against the petitioner. The afore echoings are anvilled upon the petitioner, in the years referred in paragraph 3 of Ex.RW-1/A, making embezzlements of money's comprised, in, a sum of Rs.72212.09/-. 4. On the afore anvil, the learned Presiding Judge, Labour Court-cum-Industrial Tribunal, Dharamshala, H.P (for short, ?the Tribunal) hence answered the reference against the petitioner. However, the meteing, of, a dis-affirmative answer, upon, the afore reference, and, against the petitioner, is, not amenable for validation, (i) as, during the course of cross-examination of RW-1, the latter acquiesces to a suggestion, vis-a-vis, in the records appertaining to the services rendered by the petitioner, no echoings being borne therein, visa- vis, any sums of money being recoverable from the petitioner, (ii) his also acquiescing to a suggestion, vis-a-vis, no inquiry qua therewith hence standing initiated against the petitioner, (iii) and, when he also acquiesces qua the afore Krishan Chand being junior to the petitioner, (iv) thereupon, the effects of all the afore acquiescence's made, by RW-1, during, the course of his cross-examination, hence blunts the effect, of, communication(s) made in paragraph 3, of, Ex.RW-1/A, thereupon it was insagacious for the learned Tribunal, to, on anvil of the afore communication, and, despite one Krishan Chand, being junior to the petitioner, rather proceed to decline the relief, vis-a-vis, the petitioner, (v) also, it was not appropriate, for, the learned tribunal, to, answer the reference against the petitioner, (vi) conspicuously when meteing, of, any imputation of credence, vis-a-vis, the communication, as, borne in paragraph 3 of Ex. RW-1/A, is beyond the scope of reference, and, also when reiteratedly, the afore purported misconduct, remained unenquired into, and, also when the records appertaining to the services of the petitioner, failed to make disclosures, vis-a-vis, the afore purported misconduct, hence, holding any aura of tenacity. 5. In view of the above, the instant petition is allowed, and the reference, is, answered in favour of the petitioner, alongwith, all consequential benefits. All pending applications stand disposed of accordingly.