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. 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 petitioner has repeatedly submitted that there is nothing in the enquiry report or in the findings of the disciplinary authority about the calculation, the petitioner has now given in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. 7. Very strangely, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has repeatedly submitted that there is nothing in the enquiry report or in the findings of the disciplinary authority about the calculation, the petitioner has now given in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner also submitted that the petitioner was made to admit shortage by force under the pretext that he will be given employment and that therefore, the conclusion regarding misappropriation based on the so called admission is totally erroneous and unacceptable. 8. A Counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents pointing out that the petitioner is responsible for the shortages found at the time of inspection. The counter affidavit was on the basis that the petitioner has admitted the shortage amount during the enquiry before the Enquiry Officer and tried to sustain his stand only on the remittance of the entire amount by the petitioner. 9. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner then submitted that the petitioner cannot be charged for any misappropriation or for shortage, as the petitioner himself has remitted the entire amount which according to the respondents is the value of goods found to be in short. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has made several submissions, it is quite surprising to note that those submissions do not go well with the stand taken by the petitioner himself before the authorities at various stages. 10. First of all, the petitioner himself has admitted during enquiry and remitted the entire amount which was found to be lost on account of the shortage of goods. It is to be noted that the petitioner himself in response to one of the notices, sought for time to make the remaining payment. From the various demand drafts sent by the petitioner, the Enquiry Officer as well as the disciplinary authority have proceeded on the basis that the petitioner has committed a serious misconduct and caused loss to the TASMAC because of the shortage. 11. It is not in dispute that an enquiry Officer was appointed and after holding the enquiry he came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed a serious misconduct. 11. It is not in dispute that an enquiry Officer was appointed and after holding the enquiry he came to the conclusion that the petitioner has committed a serious misconduct. Though the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the enquiry report was never served on the petitioner, this Court is unable to find any specific ground in the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition that the enquiry report was not served on the petitioner. It is to be noted that the Enquiry Officer himself has noted that the petitioner did not ask for further opportunity as his attempt was only to get time for making payment. 12. From the Counter affidavit filed by the second respondent, it is seen that the charges levelled against the petitioner on account of deficiency in stock for a particular period was not dealt with by the petitioner at any point of time. All along, the petitioner wants to convince the respondents by making the payment regarding the deficit and to set right things. The petitioner never asked for any opportunity to prove that he is innocent. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is trying to explain that the deficit referred to in the charge-sheet are notional and that there is no tangible evidence. 13. Even before this Court, the petitioner wants the respondents to produce the stock register and books of accounts, so as to enable the petitioner to prove that he has not committed any mischief. This Court find that the Labour Court has considered all of the submissions of the petitioner and found that the documents filed by the respondents clearly show that the petitioner is responsible for the loss. It is to be noted that the petitioner in a few representations, which requesting the respondents to provide him employment, has not disputed the charges. 14. It was never his case that the at the time of enquiry the letter stated to have been submitted by the petitioner admitting shortage was given under duress or coercion. Having regard to the findings of the Labour Court on each issue, this Court is unable to interfere with the findings, as there is no perversity or non application of mind. In other words, the findings of the Labour Court was on the basis of materials and evidences produced before the Labour Court and supported by reasons. 15. Having regard to the findings of the Labour Court on each issue, this Court is unable to interfere with the findings, as there is no perversity or non application of mind. In other words, the findings of the Labour Court was on the basis of materials and evidences produced before the Labour Court and supported by reasons. 15. In such circumstances, this Court find no merit in the Writ Petition. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs.