THOMAS COOK (INDIA) LIMITED Vs. MOHIT JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) VIDE the present petition, the petitioner seeks quashing and setting the impugned award dated 15.02.2010, passed by the Labour Court in I.D. No. 111/2000, whereby the learned Labour Court directed the petitioner to pay compensation in the form of lump sum amount of Rs. 3 lac (Rupees Three Lakhs) towards all the claims of the respondent/workman.

(2.) MR . Alok Bhasin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the respondent was appointed as a trainee on 09.07.1997 for a fixed term of one year. Thereafter, he was appointed as an Executive, Foreign Exchange and was posted at Hotel Imperial Branch on 20.07.1998. Mr. K.C. Pathak, one of the tourist came to Hotel Imperial branch of the petitioner on 25.08.1998 with a demand draft of Rs.1,22,500/ -(Rupees One Lakh, Twenty Two Thousand and Five Hundred) to purchase US Dollars. As per procedure, demand draft was first presented by Mr. Pathak at the "Formalities Window" where Mr. Vipul Agarwal was on duty, who completed the transaction manually. He applied the selling rate of US Dollars prevalent at that time so as to cover the amount of the demand draft and mentioned the US Dollars amount USD2838 equivalent to Rs.1,22,460/ - @ Rs.43.15 on the A -2 Form, BTQ Form and Passport of Mr. K.C. Pathak. Having made the said entries, said Mr. Vipul Agarwal handed over the A -2 Form, BTQ Form and the Passport of Mr. K.C. Pathak to respondent no.1 for further processing. The respondent no.1 sold USD 2838 to Mr. Pathak and accordingly he deposited only a sum of Rs.1,17,777/ - in respect of the said sale. The shortfall in the deposit made by the respondent no.1 was detected on 25.08.1998 evening itself. The respondent no.1, while admitting having deposited only Rs.1,17,777/ - instead of Rs.1,22,460/ -, has taken the stand that it was due to human error as he applied a wrong rate of Rs.41.50 instead of the actual selling rate of Rs.43.50 and thus sold US Dollars 2838 to Mr. Pathak for Rs.1,17,777/ - instead of Rs.1,22,460/ -.

(3.) LEARNED counsel submitted that respondent no.1 in its letter dated 27.08.1998 submitted his explanation to the Manager of the petitioner that the same was accepted by the computer and mistake of rate could not be detected. The same was detected only when a person from Nehru Place office, feeding all the manual cases, noticed the under rate sale. Accordingly, he also cross -checked and found the rate of Rs.41.50 for sale to be the under rate. Accordingly, he made cash payment of Rs.4723/ - from his pocket and asked the manager to consider it as a human error being in the interest of fast customer service. Learned counsel further submitted that he did not cross -check the amount and sold the Dollar at below rate. The theory of human error cannot be accepted for the reason he did not ask for quotation, moreover, he failed to contact the customer despite advice by the Manager.