entire proceedings of inquiry starting with the memo of charges, the written statement of the workmen, the proceedings before the enquiry officer and the evidence adduced in the inquiry as well as the inquiry report. In the written statement filed by the respondent, it was stated that all the 4 persons were working in the branch when the shortage was detected. The Labour Court, after perusing the inquiry files M1 to M4, found that the domestic enquiry was conducted through an advocate, consistent with the principles of natural justice and without any opposition from the workmen, either during the course of enquiry or thereafter. The objection raised against examination of the presenting officer was held unsustainable. On the question of findings arrived at by the inquiry officer, Labour Court found that even though suspicious circumstances and occasions were pointed out by the 4 delinquent employees, it was an admitted fact that there occurred shortage of medicines, which was proved also, on the basis of the evidence on record. Therefore they were held answerable for the loss sustained by the company. In these circumstances, relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in High Court of Judicature through its Registrar v. Udaysingh, S/O.Ganpatrao Naik Nimbalkar &
