HARYANA HOTELS LTD Vs. PRESIDING OFFICER INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is aggrieved by the award dated December 13, 1991 of the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad. The Tribunal has ordered the reinstatement of the workman with full back wages leaving the petitioner at liberty to take appropriate action in accordance with law. A few facts may be noticed.

(2.) ON June 8, 1988, the petitioner offered an appointment to the respondent as Bcautician-Cum-Hair Dresser on contract basis. A copy of this offer is at Annexurc P. 1 with the writ petition. It was inter-alia mentioned that the respondent would have to "enter into an agreement. . . . You will be joining duty only after execution of the agreement as above. " Accordingly, the respondent executed an agreement on June 16, 1988. In paragraph 5 of this agreement, it was stipulated as under;-

(3.) THE respondent joined duty in pursuance to the above agreement. She was posted at Hotel Raj Hans, Surajkund. On November 29, 1988, the Divisional Manager informed the respondent that she had "abused and shouted on Shri Rohtas Kumar, Shampoo boy in presence of guests and staff on November 27, 1988 and November 28, 1988. " It was further observed that "you have also left your duties at 4. P. M. on November 28, 1988 without taking any prior permission from the undersigned or Incharge Health Club. " She was called upon to explain her position within two days of the receipt of the letter. A copy of this letter is on record at An-nexure P-3 with the writ petition. It has also been averred in the petition that right from the beginning "the work conduct of Respondent No. 2 was found totally unsatisfactory. She was habitual late-comer. She was found sleeping in working hours. Her behaviour towards superiors, co-worker and the customers was always found abusive which was damaging to the business of the ptitioner where soft, cordial and courteous behaviour is the need of the hour. . . The respondent No. 2 was asked to 'mend' herself several times verbally as well as in writing. But she did not ment herself. . . . Under the circumstances, keeping in view the interest of the business the services of the respondent No. 2 was (were) terminated as per Clause 5 of the agreement by an order simpliciter. . . " On December 30, 1988, the petitioner passed an order terminating the services of the respondent. She was "relived of her duties w. e. f. December 30, 1988 (A. N.) as her services are no more required. "