LE MERIDIEN Vs. G SRINIVASA MURTHY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE management is before this Court challenging the award in favour of the workman whereby petitioner had been directed to reinstate the workman with 60% back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement.

(2.) THE facts are as follows.-The respondent-workman who charge-sheeted on the allegations that he has caused loss to the property of the petitioner's establishment and that on 21st July, 1995 when the respondent was on duty from 10. 00 p. m. of 21-7-1995 to 7 a. m. of 22-7-1995, he was working on the upper and lower lobbies of the petitioner's establishment, at about 6. 30 a. m. on 22-7-1995 the respondent was working along with 2 other room boys. All the three were instructed to attend to a room which had been vacated. The respondent while returning from the pantry, had taken a can of Harpic which is a strong chemical used for cleaning water closets and had poured the same on a red coloured carpet of the first floor leaving thick stains to an extent of 65 metres stretching the entire length of the corridor of the first floor. The petitioner-management had taken a serious view of the situation since the hotel was being inspected by a team of inspectors form the Tourist Development corporation on the very next day, for reclassification of the hotel and it is in this background that the charge-sheet was issued. The respondent however denied the charges. An enquiry was held and the petitioner had examined several witnesses in support of the charges. One of the witness was M. W. 2-Prashanth Kumar who had, by a letter marked as Exhibit M. 5, disclosed that he was working along with the respondent on the said day when the incident had occurred and wherein he had stated that he was present in the lobby when the respondent took up the can of chemical and saw him pouring the liquid over the carpet to damage the same and the said witness having questioned the respondent as to why he did it, the respondent had simply smiled. However, when the said witness was questioned by the Personnel Manager in the first instance, he had not revealed this incident which he had witnessed and it is only after a change of mind, as on 4-8-1995, that this was narrated and a letter had been given by him in Kannada language. The same is duly singed by the witness. Since an English translation was felt necessary, an English translation was made immediately and he had also signed the said English translation which is also on record. At the time of evidence however, the witness had sought to negate what was said by him and he was treated as a hostile witness. There was no cross-examination. Thereafter, the said witness was fielded as a witness on behalf of the respondent and has been extensively cross-examined by the petitioner-management and it is brought out in the course of cross-examination that he had in fact signed the letter produced as Exhibit M. 5, and an English translation, Ex. M. 6. However, he denied the contents of the same. The witness also did not disclose at whose instance any such letter was written though it was written in Kannada language or that and there was undue pressure exercised on him by anyone to write such a letter. Under this circumstance, the Labour Court had proceeded to consider the evidence of other witnesses and has held that none of the witnesses were eye-witness to the incident. Since the witness M. W. 2, had turned hostile and since he had not been cross-examined and therefore it should be deemed that the documents sought to be relied upon in support of the charge ought not to be taken into account and it is on this basis the Labour Court had found that the charges were not proved and had directed reinstatement.

(3.) THE Counsel for the petitioner Sri J. Kanikraj would highlight this aspect, namely, that the said witness M. W. 2-Prashanth Kumar has not denied that the letter is duly signed by him at Exhibit M. 5 which discloses that he was witness to the incident. This itself would indicate the pressure that he was facing in relation to the incident and subsequent to that, at the stage of evidence, in view of the inexplicable admission that it was signed by him but the contents were negated, which are circumstances which have been dealt with reference to strict rules of evidence; The Labour Court was dealing with the proceedings in a domestic enquiry and strict rules of evidence, as would be applicable to a criminal trial, ought not to have been insisted upon by the labour Court. What was material was the strong probability of the case as could be made out and in the facts and circumstances and in cases of this nature, to hold that the charges have not been established for paucity of evidence of an eye-witness was not fair. The finding of the Labour Court was wholly arbitrary and perverse. The Labour Court has glossed over the circumstance of M. W. 2 having at one point of time declined that respondent had committed this act of misconduct and possibly at the pressure and influence of the respondent had sought to retract the same halfheartedly. This has been construed by the Labour Court as a circumstance to exonerate the respondent and therefore, would plead that given the meticulous standards that the petitioner would require to maintain at its establishment, the present respondent being foisted on it in the face of such conduct, which is not completely beyond suspicion. The award of the labour Court would necessarily warrant interference.