VITHAL K SHETTY Vs. RITZ HOTEL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is directed against two Awards passed by the Labour Court in two references being Reference (I. D. A.) No. 987 of 1987 and 988 of 1987, concerning petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 respectively. By the impugned Awards, dated 29th November, 1987 the references have been rejected by the Labour Court. The reference was made for adjudication of the dispute between respondent No. 1-M/s. Ritz Hotel (for short "employer" or "hotel") and petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, who were working as waiter in the hotel since 1977.

(2.) THE principal question raised in the instant writ petition for consideration is that if there is an acquittal on merits by the Criminal Court, as a necessary consequence thereof, the delinquent who has been dismissed much prior to the order of acquittal after holding disciplinary proceedings on identical set of facts, is entitled to reinstatement as if there was no blot on his service. The other question that has been raised for consideration is whether the findings of the Enquiry Officer are perverse, and lastly, whether the treatment meted out to the petitioners, discriminating them from two other workmen who were similarly placed, suffer from vice of arbitrariness.

(3.) THE factual matrix giving rise to the present writ petition and necessary to answer the aforesaid questions raised by the petitioners, reveal that on 18th September, 1984 at about 11. 10 p. m. petitioner Nos. 1 and 2 alongwith one Arthur Santos and Thomas Menzes committed jointly and severally the act of assault in the premises of the hotel on Ram Manohar and Ram Kumar who were working as watchman at the relevant time. The case set up by the employer against the petitioners was that at the relevant time they alongwith two others went to Ram Manohar and Ram Kumar near their cabin from the rear gate of the hotel and questioned them as to why they had collected the bonus and on that count they mercilessly assaulted Ram Kumar and Ram Manohar with fist blows and kicks. It is specifically alleged that petitioner No. 2 Janardhan assaulted both with lathi (stick) resultantly the watchmen received serious injury for which they had been treated in hospital. They also alleged to have threatened the aforesaid watchmen. It further reveals that one Ram Naresh, another watchman, informed the alleged incident to the General Manager, who arrived at the scene of incident and informed the police. Some other workmen working in the hotel had also assembled near the scene of incident. During the assault the petitioners also alleged to have intentionally damaged the cabin of watchman. On the basis of the aforesaid allegations the petitioners, Arthur Santos and Thomas Menzes were charged as per Clauses 24 (k), 24 (l) and 24 (q) of the Model Standing Orders applicable to them. The relevant Clauses of Model Standing Orders read thus : "24 (k) Drunkenness, riotous, disorderly or indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment. 24 (l) Commission of an act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. 24 (q) Wilful damage to property of the establishment.