LE MERIDIEN Vs. MS. PRAMILA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PETITIONER M/s. Le Meridien is before me challenging the judgment and award of the Labour Court, Bangalore in ID No. 168 of 2000 dated 11.1.2005 at Annexure -N.

(2.) PETITIONER is a hotel having Health Club at Bangalore. Number of guests visit the Health Club in the hotel. Locker facilities for keeping personal belongings of the visitors of the club. Only the staff members of the Health Club can enter the change rooms where the safe deposit lockers are kept. The staff are required to maintain highest integrity, honesty and trustworthiness. Petitioner notified its staff members to the effect if they intend bringing cash of Rs. 500/ - and above inside the establishment, they are required to declare the same at the Security and make necessary entries in the register kept in the 'Time Office'.

(3.) ON 5.7.2000, Respondent was given instructed instructions to work in the shift commencing from 7 a.m. to 12 noon and from 4 p.m. to 8 p.m. On the said day, one lady member of the Health Club Ms. V.S. Anjan came to the Club in the morning and kept her purse in the Safe Deposit Locker of the Club. After utilizing the Health Club facilities, she left the hotel taking back her purse intact and thereafter she found that out of Rs. 700/ -, Rs. 600/ - were missing from her purse. She called on the Lobby Manager over telephone and registered a complaint in that behalf. Respondent was the only lady employee in the Health Club and she was on duty from 6.26 a.m. onwards and she only could enter the ladies Change Room, where safe deposit lockers are kept. Therefore, she was asked to open her personal staff locker. Respondent opened her personal staff locker and it was found that six hundred -rupee notes in her purse which was kept in the locker. She confessed in writing to the effect that on 5.7.2000 when the Health Club Member Mrs. Anjan went for swimming, in her absence, she took Rs. 600/ - from her handbag and that it was her mistake. Realising her mistake she tendered her resignation. Her resignation was accepted. A full and final settlement statement was prepared in terms of Annexure -F. The cheque given was not realized. Thereafter she approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner alleging that that her resignation was obtained by force. Respondent did not claim reinstatement. She only claimed payment of gratuity, leave salary, etc. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Respondent also had initiated the proceedings before the Labour and Conciliation Officer according to the writ averments.