CENTAUR HOTEL LTD Vs. P.O., INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present petition the Petitioner impugns the award dated 9th May, 1997 whereby the order of termination of Respondent No. 2 was set aside and he was directed to be reinstated with full back wages.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Petitioner contends that the jurisdiction of the Tribunal at best was to see whether the principles of natural justice had been followed or not, whether a proper departmental inquiry was held, whether Respondent No. 2 was given a fair chance to place his defence and whether there was any mala fide exercise of power. However, the learned Trial Court re-appreciated the entire evidence which was beyond its jurisdiction and came to the conclusion that the misconduct of Respondent No. 2 was not proved. There is no finding of the learned Trial Court that the principles of natural justice were violated or that there was any illegality in the inquiry proceedings. Eight witnesses were examined during the inquiry and Respondent No. 2 was given an opportunity to cross-examine all these eight witnesses. Though FIR lodged by Mahesh Yadav, the Complainant could not be produced however, the FIR lodged by Ms. G.K. Sethi was produced and proved during the inquiry proceedings which substantiated the allegations against Respondent No. 2 clearly. Ms. G.K. Sethi also appeared in the witness box and was thoroughly cross-examined. She stated that the Respondent No. 2 along with P.K. Bose and Venu Nambiar came to her when she was on duty at reception in drunken state and abused her. When P.K. Bose assaulted her Mahesh Yadav intervened. The three of them then took Mahesh Yadav outside to the Porch and later when he came he had injuries. The entire correspondences to the Security Manager both by Ms. G.K. Sethi and Mr. Mahesh Yadav were placed and exhibited during the inquiry along with the injury sheet of Mr. Mahesh Yadav which showed that he had suffered fracture and injury. Merely because there was one more complaint registered against Mr. Mahesh Yadav for the same day, the learned Trial Court exonerated the Respondent. Reliance is placed on State of Haryana & Anr. v. Rattan Singh, AIR 1977 SC 1512to contend that strict and sophisticated rules of evidence do not apply to the disciplinary proceedings and the Industrial Tribunal cannot go into the sufficiency of evidence.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties.