BOMBAY HOSPITAL TRUST Vs. RITA MINWANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The first respondent was working as a receptionist-cum-Clerk at the Bombay Hospital. On 28th May, 1994, a chargesheet was issued to her alleging that on 20th April, 1994 she was on duty in the first shift between 7 a. m. and 3 p. m. Mr. M. G. Joshi, an employee who was handling cash at the counter was on his lunch break between 12 noon and 1 p. m. , during which period the first respondent was stated to be handling cash at the counter. When Joshi returned, the first respondent is stated to have handed over five receipts of indoor patients with an amount of Rs. 35,500/ -. However, when Joshi checked the counter statement, he found that during the time when the first respondent was working at the cash counter, she had received cash from six indoor patients amounting to Rs. 45,500/- and that she had in fact, handed over only five receipts to him. On being asked to produce cash in the amount of rs. 10,000/- and the sixth receipt which had been issued to an indoor patient, the first respondent was unable to do so. The chargesheet against the first respondent was of theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the property of the Hospital and a commission of an act subversive of discipline.

(2.) A disciplinary proceeding was then convened. Parties led evidence and the Enquiry Officer came to the conclusion that the charge of misconduct was established. The first respondent was dismissed from service by an order dated 14th November, 1994. A reference to adjudication was thereupon made to the labour Court. The Labour Court by an award dated 29th April, 2000 came to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper. Thereupon, evidence was adduced by the management in support of the charge of misconduct. Evidence was also adduced by the first respondent. By the impugned award dated 14th january, 2002, the Labour Court has allowed the reference and directed that the first respondent be reinstated in service with full backwages and continuity in service with effect from 11th April, 1994.

(3.) The submission that has been urged on behalf of the petitioner is that the entire approach of the Labour Court is misconceived and contrary to law laid down by the Supreme Court. The Labour Court by its Part-1 award has come to the conclusion that the enquiry was not fair and proper. The management had availed of an opportunity to lead evidence to prove the substantive charge of misconduct. The Labour Court, it is submitted, was required to consider whether the charge of misconduct stood established on the basis of the evidence which was adduced before the Court. Counsel submitted that the Labour Court has had regard to the material before the Enquiry Officer and has then come to the conclusion both on the basis of that material as well as the evidence led before it that the charge is not established. The submission was that the material before the enquiry Officer could not possibly have been relied upon under section 11a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, once the enquiry has been held not to be fair and proper.