TOURIST HOTEL Vs. BALARAM SHRIPATI KAMBLE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner claim to be a hotel of reputation in the city of Kolhapur and carry on the business of providing lodging and boarding services to the public at large including the tourists who visit the city. They have a complement of about 64 employees in different categories and the respondent No. 1 was one of such 64 employees, who was dismissed from employment by the petitioner on a very serious charge of bringing prostitute/call girl in the hotel premises to be provided to a passenger who was occupying the room in the hotel on 20th February 1983/21st February 1983. The time of the entry of the call girl in the hotel with the respondents is also crucial as it was at 00. 45 minutes past midnight. At some place the call girl is described as a prostitute and as lady at some other places. It is on record that the passenger customer and the call girl both were found in the room No. 35 of the hotel and both were caught by the watchman. The watchman informed the receptionist and both of them appeared to have given a knock at the midnight hour on the door of the room occupied by the passenger. Accordingly when the door was opened the customer and call girl were found in the room by the receptionist and the watchman. Having been caught red handed in such a situation both of them left the hotel premises and ran away and could not be caught by the watchman. The respondent No. 1, the delinquent workman and his companion Shri Gawade both appeared to have taken part in this joint venture. When they could not get the call girl and the passenger who had disappeared they came back to the receptionist and tendered their oral apologies about the whole incident.

(2.) ON 26th February 1983, the petitioners served two separate charge sheets on the first respondent as well as his companion Shri Gawade for the act of misconduct committed by them and their explanation was sought for. Shri Gawde instead of tendering explanation, tendered his resignation and left the employment of the petitioner with immediate effect on the ground that he was leaving the job for his domestic reasons. It appears that in view of his resignation which is on record of the present petition no further necessary for the petitioners as regards Shri Gawde is concerned. The first respondent delinquent workman submitted his written explanation on 6th March 1983 denying the charges levelled against him. Since his explanation was found unsatisfactory, the petitioner hold a domestic enquiry against him to give him further opportunity of hearing in the matter. It appears that the petitioners management had examined in all three witnesses before the Enquiry Officer, i. e. Mr. Kale, the receptionist, Mr. Patil, the watchman and Mr. Nath the Manager. It further appears from the record that the Manager, Nath had held a preliminary investigation on the next day of the incident and had recorded the statements of the aforesaid Shri Kale and Patil respectively. These statements of both the witnesses were produced in the enquiry and both the aforesaid witnesses were examined in the enquiry and were also offered for cross examination of the respondent, delinquent workman who was represented by his representative, an office bearer of his union, Shri Waidande. The evidence of the receptionist and the watchman was on the record of the Enquiry Officer and the same was tested by cross examination on behalf of the delinquent workman. Both of them had proved their earlier statements. It is also on record that the receptionist had deposed in the enquiry that the respondent delinquent workman as well as his companion Shri Gawde both had tendered an oral apology to the receptionist but they refused to give the same in writing. I need not repeat that the receptionist was cross examined on behalf of the delinquent workman. But it appears that nothing could be elicited in the cross examination. On the basis of the material on record, the Enquiry Officer found the delinquent workman guilty of the charges levelled against him and on the basis of such report submitted by the Enquiry Officer, the petitioner passed an order of dismissal of the respondent delinquent workman from the employment on 3rd May 1983.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the said order of dismissal, the first respondent workman raised an industrial dispute challenging the propriety and legality of the order of dismissal, and prayed for an award of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. The said industrial dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. After receiving the pleadings and documents from both the parties, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court framed a preliminary point in respect of legality and validity of the enquiry and answered the same in favour of the petitioner by his order dated 20th May 1985, holding that the domestic enquiry conducted by the petitioner was legal and proper and fixed the matter for hearing on other points. The Labour Court categorically held that there was no vitiating defect in the conduct of the enquiry. He also positively held that mere omission to examine the alleged customer/passenger in the enquiry will not by itself vitiate the enquiry. It further appears from the final award of the Labour Court that the learned Presiding Officer had succeeded his predecessors recast issues and answered against the petitioner. It was held by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court that charges levelled against the respondent workman were not proved, and therefore, his dismissal order was illegal, improper and unjust. He has also held in favour of the workman that he was victimised and therefore, he was entitled to get the relief of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service and accordingly he gave his impugned award on 17th August 1992 declaring the dismissal of the workman as illegal, improper and by way of victimisation and by setting aside the same he granted consequential reliefs of reinstatement with full backwages and continuity of service. It is this final award which is under challenge before me in the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.