JUDGMENT (Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of Constitution of India for issuance of Writ of Certiorari, to call for the records relating to the I.D.No.59 of 1997 dated 04.12.2008 on the file of the 2nd Additional Labour Court at Chennai and quash the same.) 1. The instant Writ Petition has been filed by the Management challenging the Award made in I.D.No.59 of 1997 dated 4.12.2008 whereunder the Industrial Tribunal has set aside the order of dismissal passed against the first respondent herein. 2. Mr.R.Karunagaran, learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the Industrial Tribunal wholly erred in failing to appreciate the materials produced by it to substantiate that the first respondent has indulged in misappropriation as there was deficit of stock at the self service unit of the shop run by the Management. According to him, disciplinary proceedings were initiated against five persons and all of them were found guilty and orders of termination were passed. Apart from that recovery proceedings were also initiated and ended in favour of the Management. Three of the delinquent officials did not challenge and only two had challenged the punishment inflicted on them. 3. The Industrial Tribunal by a common Award set aside the order of punishment. As regards, the petitioner in I.D.No.60 of 1997, she had not pressed for reinstatement and therefore, the Management did not prefer any further proceedings against the Award in I.D.No.60 of 1997. But, however, since the first respondent herein insisted for reinstatement. Hence, the Management filed the present Writ Petition. According to him, the Enquiry Officer had held the charges to be proved as during the enquiry, the first respondent had accepted to the deficiency in stock. That apart, when in the recovery proceedings presided over by the Deputy Registrar of Co-operative Society had also directed recovery of the deficit amount. Therefore, the Industrial Tribunal ought to have held that the first respondent was guilty of charges. The Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal otherwise is wholly erroneous and perverse and therefore sought this Court to interfere with the same. 4. Countering his arguments, Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that during the enquiry by the Management, no independent witness was examined nor any documents were produced to substantiate the deficit stock. According to him, even before the Industrial Tribunal, no documents were produced to substantiate the charges. 4. Countering his arguments, Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the first respondent would submit that during the enquiry by the Management, no independent witness was examined nor any documents were produced to substantiate the deficit stock. According to him, even before the Industrial Tribunal, no documents were produced to substantiate the charges. That apart, the Presenting Officer was examined as the only Management witness, who had also admitted to the various infirmities in the proceedings. Hence, prayed this Court to sustain the Award and dismiss the Writ Petition. 5. I have considered the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing on either side. The Industrial Tribunal while setting aside the decree has referred to the evidence of the sole Management witness. In his cross-examination, he has specifically admitted that the Management had not produced any documents to substantiate that the first respondent was jointly responsible for the deficit in stock nor there was no details as to how much there was a deficit in stock. He had also admitted that there was no independent evidence examined to substantiate the charges. He has also admitted that the Auditor's Report has not been filed. 6. A perusal of the list of documents would also show that there was no materials produced before the Industrial Tribunal to substantiate the charges. It is also further noted from the charge memo dated 03.06.1991, the deficit of stock has been noted to be at Rs.89,839.20/-. This amount is also not correctly arrived at, for the reason they had initiated recovery proceedings only for a sum of Rs.10,062.68 in which, the Arbitrator under Section 90 of the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Societies Act, 1983 only fixed a sum of Rs.6,495.07 to be recovered from the first respondent and three others. 7. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, the averment is that the first respondent was responsible for a deficit stock of worth about Rs.18,349.38. This would substantiate the admission of MW1 made during the cross-examination that as recorded by the Industrial Tribunal's order that the Management had not clearly stated what was the amount deficit for which the first respondent was responsible. 8. In view of the above discrepancy, I am of the view that the charge memo itself has not been properly framed. It is an admitted fact that the first respondent had also submitted an explanation denying the charges. 8. In view of the above discrepancy, I am of the view that the charge memo itself has not been properly framed. It is an admitted fact that the first respondent had also submitted an explanation denying the charges. But, it is not known on what basis, the Enquiry Officer has recorded in his Enquiry Report that the first respondent has admitted to the charges as claimed by the petitioner. As seen from the list of documents to the impugned Award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, there was no documents produced by the petitioner Management before the Industrial Tribunal to substantiate the charges. 9. In light of the above findings, this Writ Petition fails and is dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.