RITZ PRIVATE LTD Vs. FELIX FURTADO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition challenges the award of the Labour Court in Reference (IDA) No. 202 of 1988 passed on 11.11.1996.

(2.) The petitioner had employed respondent No. 1 as a telephone operator in its hotel since 1.7.1977. An application for leave was submitted by him on 6.10.1984. He requested that the leave be sanctioned for the period from 17.10.1984 to 15.11.1984. The leave was sanctioned immediately. However, he was informed the very next day, well before the leave period was to commence that the application made by him was disallowed and that the leave which had earlier been sanctioned had been revoked. A fresh application was made by the respondent No. 1 on 12.10.1984 contending that he was required to leave for his native place to visit his ailing grandmother. The period for which leave was sought was the same as the period in the earlier application. It appears that this second application for leave was answered by the petitioner on 16.10.1984, informing the respondent the reasons for which the sanction was revoked. The respondent however proceeded on leave for the period which was initially sanctioned. He resumed duties on 6.11.1985. Thereafter, he continued to work with the petitioner. On 7.1.1985, he left the telephone exchange unattended from 4.35 p.m. to 6.10 p.m. while he attended a gate meeting of the union representing the workmen. A charge-sheet was issued to the respondent No. 1 on 16.1.1985. The chargesheet incorporated two charges namely of willful insubordination and absence without leave for more than 10 consecutive days. A domestic enquiry was held against respondent No. 1 and he was found guilty by the enquiry officer of both the charges alleged against him. Thereafter, the respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service in view of the charges proved against him and the gravity of the misconduct committed by him on 27.4.1987.

(3.) The workman raised an industrial dispute which was referred for adjudication before the 4th Labour Court, Mumbai in Reference (IDA) No. 202 of 1988. In the statement of claim, the respondent No. 1 contended that the enquiry held against him was not fair and proper, as the principles of natural justice had been violated. He also contended that the findings recorded by the enquiry officer were perverse and, therefore, were required to be set aside. Respondent No. 1 pleaded in his statement of claim that there was no evidence on record proving the misconduct. He therefore contended that he should be awarded reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages.