LAWS(KAR)-2024-10-46

TAJ WEST END HOTEL Vs. K VENKATESH

Decided On October 28, 2024
Taj West End Hotel Appellant
V/S
K Venkatesh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The question that falls for consideration is :

(2.) Respondent was appointed in the kitchen of the petitioner, on acts of theft, misappropriation and fraud, articles of charges were issued, the said charges were based on an incident that occurred on 3/10/2015, when the respondent was on duty and post completion of his shift duties, he had punched at 12.00 hours on 4/10/2015 early hours, and during that time i.e., about 12.05 hours, while duty security guard at that time Mr. Ranganath carried out check on the respondent and his Suzuki motor cycle bearing Reg. No.KA-02-EE-7958, a Safal brand one litre oil sachet was found hidden on the tank bag of his two wheeler, when the security took oil packet from the tank bag of the two wheeler and questioned, the respondent requested to forgive him and pleaded not to inform or report about the same to anyone and tried to snatch the packet from the security, the respondent held on to the packet and pulled it hard, as a result of which the packet opened spilling the oil over the wireless set held by the security guard, this resulted in malfunctioning of wireless set, preventing him from calling the duty security officer, when the security guard went to the land line to make a call and intimate the duty security officer, the workman got on to his vehicle and sped away from the scene, the said incident was informed by Ranganath, Security Guard by way of a complaint and Neeta, Assistant Security Officer also reported the incident in this regard on 4/10/2015.

(3.) Charge-sheet-cum-suspension pending enquiry was issued to the respondent, respondent submitted his explanation admitting that "when the security guard taken out the oil sachet from the pouch of my vehicle, all of a sudden, I was surprised and shocked to know that. At that point of time, in order to ascertain the truth, I tried to take the sachet from the security guard who resisted it, thereby leading to break open of the oil sachet." The respondent, denied the other charge of speeding away from the place, not being satisfied with the explanation offered, the enquiry was held, one B.K. Guruprasad was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, conducted enquiry and management examined six witnesses and the respondent was assisted by the coemployee, the Enquiry Officer, arrived at a conclusion that the respondent was the guilty of charges leveled against him and second show-cause notice was issued as to why the report of the enquiry officer should not be accepted and acted upon, before the Disciplinary Authority on considering the enquiry report and material placed, passed an order of dismissal, the respondent challenged the dismissal order by raising a dispute under Sec. 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (''the ID Act' for short).