MANAGEMENT OF RANGADORE MEMORIAL HOSPITAL Vs. ROSELIND PRABHUVATHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt.Sheela Krishna., learned counsel for the petitioner has appeared in person.

(2.) The brief facts are these: The petitioner is a General hospital and it is functioning from the year 2007. The hospital is attached to Sri Sringeri Sharada Peetham Charitable Trust. The respondent was appointed by the petitioner hospital as Receptionist on 03. 06.2009. On 28/2/2011 one Dr.Shivananda Swamy a consultant of the hospital complained that the respondent had taken money from a patient Basamma by representing that the said doctor is running an orphanage and the donation is required for the same. In view of the same, the said consultant doctor requested the hospital to take immediate action on the said matter. Thereafter the hospital authorities called the respondent and personally enquired about the said allegation. The personal enquiry was made by Dr.Sudha Rani along with Sapna N.Rao. The respondent was explained about the complaint. She did not give any reply for the same. It is said that the said event was crosschecked with the patient who confirmed the fact of money being taken by the respondent. It is averred that the respondent left the hospital premises refusing to sign on the proceedings. Subsequently, the Management terminated the service of respondent since the same was a grave misconduct and the continuation of her services in the hospital would pose a serious threat to the discipline, integrity and reputation of the hospital. The respondent was terminated on 28/2/2011 in the best interest of the hospital. The order of termination was also communicated to the respondent by RPAD. It is said that on 7/3/2011 the respondent sent a request letter asking the petitioner to allow her to continue the job. The petitioner sent a suitable reply along with fresh termination letter dtd.:10/3/2011. Thereafter the final settlement of the money due to the respondent was made. Aggrieved by the order of the termination, the respondent raised a Dispute under Sec. 10(4-A) read with Sec. 2A of the I.D.Act with a prayer to set-aside the order of termination. The hospital filed its counter to the claim statement. The Issues were framed. The Labour Court passed the award directing the hospital to reinstate the respondent. It is this award that is called into question in this Writ Petition on several grounds as set out in the Memorandum of Writ Petition.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has urged several contentions. Heard, the contentions urged on behalf of the petitioner and perused the Writ papers with utmost care.