HOTEL TAJ PALACE Vs. RAVI ROHILLA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petitioner, i.e., Hotel Taj Palace (hereinafter referred to as the 'petitioner -management') has preferred the present Writ Petition under Article 226 read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the impugned order dated 19.12.2003 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal -II, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the 'learned Labour Court/Industrial Adjudicator') in O.P. No. 568/1993.

(2.) The brief facts stated are that the respondent -workman, i.e., Shri Ravi Rohilla, was appointed as General Tradesman w.e.f. 02.07.1985 on a monthly salary of Rs. 2631.50 per month with the petitioner -management. The petitioner -management on finding him absent from his duty for a period of 84 days on 43 occasions which is violative of service condition rules clause 31 (i) (42), i.e., Habitual absence without leave and absence without leave for more than seven consecutive days, issued a show cause notice dated 07.09.1992 to the respondent -workman. The petitioner -management after going through the explanation given by the respondent - workman dated 12.10.1992 did not find the reply satisfactory and initiated the inquiry proceedings against him. Thereafter, the inquiry officer submitted his report dated 15.10.1993 and held the respondent -workman guilty of the misconduct of unauthorised absence of 67 days during the period September, 1991 to August, 1992. The petitioner -management concurring the finding of the inquiry officer proceeded with dismissal order dated 19.11.1993 by moving an approval application under Sec. 33(2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the learned Industrial Adjudicator in presence of a pending industrial dispute, i.e., I.D. No. 6/1992 between the management and the Union of workers of the management. The petitioner -management had remitted one month's wages to the respondent -workman vide money order receipts No. 0942 and 0943 dated 18.11.1993. However, the respondent -workman denied the allegations so put forward against him by the petitioner -management.

(3.) On the pleadings before the learned Industrial Adjudicator, the preliminary issue, i.e., "Whether the applicant held a proper inquiry against the respondent?(OPA) " was framed and after giving fair opportunities to both the parties, the said issue was decided in favour of the petitioner -management and against the respondent -workman on 23.04.2003.