- (1.) As identical questions of law and facts are involved, therefore, I propose to decide the above indicated writ petitions, arising out of the same impugned award, by means of this common judgment, in order to avoid the repetition. However, the relevant facts, which need a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant writ petitions, have been extracted from 2nd Civil Writ Petition No. 2634 of 1992 titled as ''Ashok Kumar Mehta v. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bathinda and Anr.'', in this regard.
(2.) Concisely, the facts, culminating in the commencement, relevant for disposal of the present writ petitions and emanating from the record, are that Ashok Kumar Mehta, workman was appointed and was working as a Field Assistant in the year 1981, with Punjab State Cooperative Supply and Marketing Federation (for brevity ''the Markfed''). In the wake of heavy rains during the course of harvesting season of Rabi crops, the respective Governments had taken a decision to purchase the entire stock of rain affected wheat, at the fixed rates from the farmers. Consequently, the Markfed has also purchased rain affected wheat in the year 1982-83 as per policy-decision.
(3.) The Markfed claimed that as there was a shortage of wheat, therefore, Ashok Kumar Mehta workman and his co-employee Roop Singh, were charge sheeted for recording a shortage of 250 Qtls. 92 Kgs. of wheat at the time of delivery to the FCI by way of common charge sheet dated 11.06.1984. (Annexure P-8). After completion of the inquiry, the Inquiry Officer submitted his inquiry report (Annexure P-12) against them. Consequently, the services of workman and his co-employee Roop Singh were terminated by the Markfed.;