KHANNA TALKIES Vs. INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this writ petition Khanna Talkies, Paharganj, New Delhi, petitioner No. 1, a partnership firm, of which Shambhu Nath and Vishwa Nath, petitioners Nos. 2 and 3 respectively are partners, have challenged the award dated December 28, 1963 of the Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, whereby the orders of dismissal of Bansi Lal, respondent No. 3, and Shiv Kishan Khanna, respondent No. 4, were set aside and it was directed that they will be paid compensation inlieu of reinstatement at the rate of 15 days wages for every years service. The Industrial Tribunal, Delhi, and Delhi Administration have been made respondents Nos. I and 5 respectively, while the Cine Employee's Association (the Trade Union) was impleaded as respondent No. 2.

(2.) The petitioners run a cinema called Khanna Talkies in Paharganj, New Delhi. Both respondents Nos. 3 and 4 were their employers. On June 16, 1961, a charge sheet was served on Bansi Lal, respondent 'No.3 and anothr employee alleging that on May 14,1961, they had abetted Sohan Lal, athird employee of the petitioners, in selling cinema tickets in the black market, which act was said to have brought the management into disrepute. Both the workmen were alleged to have admitted the commission of the misconduct before the Manager and before Shambhu Nath, petitioner No. 2, one of the partners. Sohan Lal, the third employee was convicted under section 9(b) of the U. P. Entertainment and Betting Tax Act by a Magistrate and had been sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00. As Bansi Lal, respondent No. 3 later denied the charge, the petitioners appointed Shri D. N. Vohra, as the enquiry officer to go into the charge. On August 8, 1961, on the basis of the report of the enquiry officer, respondent No. 3 was dismissed from service. The other employee was also dismissed, but his dismissal was upheld and he is not a party to these proceedings.

(3.) Respondent No. 4 had also been served with a charge sheet on May 23, 1961 to the effect that he had used filthy and insulting language towards the office peon by the name of Virendar Kumar, when the latter had seat in the afternoon of that day to get some official information from him. Respondent No. 4 was alleged also to have assaulted the peon. Respondent No. 4, however, stated that Ram Kishan of the Head office of petitioner No. 1 had asked him to collect Rs. 65 from the Booking Office for paying his personal water-tax bill. In the absence of the Manager, it was not possible or advisable to get the money from the Booking Office; and this annoyed Ram Kishan, who shouted at him. Respondent No. 4 further alleged that he protested against this and came downstairs. After two or three minutes, Virendar Kumar, the peon, came to him and told him that he was being called, by Ram Kishan in the office; and on his replying that he had just been to the office, the said, peon used derogatory language.