BALAKRISHANAN K Vs. HOTEL TAMIL NADU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT was working as a Cook in the first respondent hotel from 1984. On June 22, 1988, the first respondent management shot a show cause notice, requiring the appellant to submit his explanation, for an irregularity, which he committed on June 21, 1988, during the course of his duty. It was stated therein that without kitchen order token (KOT), he prepared and sent some food items through one Vijayan, who was a casual labourer, to the Bar Room, where certain individuals were consuming alcohol. One K. Shanmugasundaram was the bar In-charge at the relevant time. The items, said to have been pilfered, were : (i) Chicken fry - 4 plates_ Rs. 52/-; (ii) Chicken Biryani _ 4 plates _ Rs. 60/- and (iii) Vegetable Biryani - 2 plates - Rs. 20/-, costing Rs. 132/- It was further stated that even after collecting Rs. 132/- from the customer, the above said staff had not remitted the amount by preparing a bill and the appellant herein misappropriated the amount. On the same day, the management issued another proceedings, suspending the appellant from service with effect from June 24, 1988, as the appellant had misappropriated Rs. 132/- It was mentioned in the proceedings that since there was no KOT or bill, one Sesil Kumar, assistant Manager, who was in-charge of the catering department, complained the matter to the Chief Manager, who, along with one thimmiah, who came from Head Office to impart training to the hotel staff, enquired the appellant and one Shanmugasundaram. At that time, both of them admitted the irregularity they committed. Further, after the said inquiry, on june 22, 1988, at about 04. 00 p. m. , the appellant paid Rs. 60/- alone and prepared a bill. It was also ordered to conduct a departmental enquiry. For the show cause notice, the appellant submitted an explanation, stating that Vijayan came to him and, as per his direction, he prepared four plates of chicken biryani immediately for some VIPs, who were consuming liquor in the Bar, and entrusted to the said Vijayan, under the impression that the persons, who consumed liquor, might become aggressive. It was further explained that while he was handing over the food items to Vijayan, he asked him to obtain KOT or bill, for which he responded in the affirmative and he was also under the impression that Vijayan might have obtained KOT or bill properly; but, only on june 22, 1988, in the afternoon, while the manager enquired him, he came to know of the facts; it was the existing practice that even without KOT, while the restaurant staff requested to supply the food items, he used to prepare and give them and subsequently the value of the food items would be brought to bill and, on that premise alone, he handed over four plates of chicken biryani to Vijayan; non-payment of the value of the food items was only on the part of Vijayan and that he had not misappropriated the amount, by supplying chicken fry and vegetable biryani.

(2.) NOT content with the explanation of the appellant, the management issued a charge sheet, by proceedings, dated July 4, 1988. for which the appellant submitted an explanation, reiterating the averments, which he mentioned in his explanation to the show cause notice. The officer in-charge of the disciplinary proceedings conducted a domestic inquiry and submitted a report to the management on august 19, 1988, holding that all the charges were proved against the delinquent/appellant. Thereupon, on September 9, 1988, the management issued a second show cause notice to the appellant, calling for explanation, proposing to dismiss him from service. After the submission of a representation, the appellant was dismissed from service on September 30, 1988.

(3.) THEREAFTER, the appellant raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Officer, ooty, requesting for reinstatement with back wages and continuity of service. The said labour Officer, not accepting the decision arrived at by the management on the strength of the domestic inquiry report, by his proceedings dated March 9, 1993, directed the management to reinstate the workman in service. Hence, the management preferred a writ petition before this Court, which ended in its favour, leading to the filing of this Writ Appeal, at the instance of the workman.