EAST INDIA HOTELS Vs. THEIR WORKMEN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Hindustan Motors Ltd. hosted a cocktail pary on November 24, 1969, for about fifty or sixty member in the small Banquet Room of the Oberoi Grand Hotel at Calcutta. Janab Suleman one of the workmen employed as Bar Cooly by the Hotel was deputed to look after the work of Barman to attend on the party. At about 9-35 P.M. it appears one B. S. Sethi of the Hindustan Motors Ltd. one of the hosts of the party found the workman concerned pouring whisky bottle into an empty gingerale bottle. Sethi asked him as to why he was pouring the whisky into the gingerale bottle, whereupon the workman started pouring down the whisky into the tub for cooling sodas. When he poured half the bottle into the tub, Sethi took the bottle in his hand and called one Pyare Lal Steward who was on duty and complained to him. Even as he was complaining the respondent workman took the bottle from Sethi in the presence of Pyare Lal and started pouring down the contents again into the tub. One seeing this Sethi was annoyed and asked Pyare Lal to call the Manager. As the Manager Mital was not to be found, Pyare Lal called Agarwal who came there accompanied by Bakshi. Sethi then informed him of the facts which were also confirmed by Pyare Lal. The bottle was taken into custody and was sealed in the presence of the workman concerned who when asked to sign the sealed bottle refused to sign it. The bottle was sent to the Chemical Analyser who found the contents to be whisky. Again the bottle was sealed, Sethi then made a written complaint to the management of the Hotel as under:

(2.) On receipt of this complaint the appellant Hotel served the workman with a charge-sheet dated November 29, 1969 for major misconduct as per clause 17 (2) and (19) of the Standing Orders and Service Rules of the Hotel. In reply to the above charge-sheet the workman concerned submitted his explanation on December 1, 1969, denying the charges made against him. The relevant portion of his explanatiion is as follows:

(3.) The Enquiry officer conducted the enquiry in the presence of the workman. It appears that the Enquiry Officer read over the charge-sheet to the workman, recorded his plea of denial and examined Agrawal, Bakshi, Pyare Lal and Lal Singh on behalf of the employers in the presence of the workman. The workman was asked whether he wanted to ask each of the witnesses any questions as and when their evidence was recorded, but he did not do so. After the witnesses were examined the respondent workman was questioned and his answer was that he was all alone to look after the service in the Bar. He was deputed to bring drinks, ice, cigarettes etc. from Embassy Bar, and that he was not present in the Bar all the time when the party was going on. He admitted that he was asked by Sethi what was there in the gingerale bottle which he showed him. He had then replied that it must be containing 'Nimboo Pani or Squash' and did not know exactly what it contained, and then went away to do his job. After a while he saw Pyare Lal talking to Sethi. He did not know what they were talking nor he was called there. He also saw Agrawal and Bakshi there. Agrawal asked him to sign a sealed cover but he refused to sign. When asked whether he poured whiskey in the gingerale bottle his reply was in the negative. It was put to him that according to him when Sethi first showed the gingerale bottle the respondent had stated that it contained 'Nimboo Pani and Squash', if this was so, he was asked to say what was the colour of the contents of the bottle. His reply was that he did not remember. He even asserted that he could not distinguish between 'Nimboo Pani, Squash or Whisky'. He was again asked that since he admitted working in the Bar since 1951 or 1952, whether he would still say that he could not distinguish the colour of squash or whisky, brandy etc. and his answer was still in the negative. He also admitted that he went to Sethi to apologise for what had happened. But he said he did so at the instance of Pyare Lal. Though Sethi was not examined, the Enquiry Officer considered the evidence and the explanation and the reply of the respondent workman, and in a well-considered report in which the evidence of these witnesses was discussed found the respondent guilty of misconduct under clause 17 (2) and clause 17 (19) of the Standing Orders of the Hotel. On a consideration of this report the person authorised by the Hotel dismissed him.