Sunil Ambwani, Actg. C.J. - (1.) WE have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties. The D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1403/2013 Executive Director, Hotel Clarks Amer & Anr. vs. Labour Judge No. 1 & Anr., arises out of the judgment of learned Single Judge dt. 12.11.2013 by which he had partly allowed the writ petition against the Award of the Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur dt. 15.11.2010 in Case No. L.C.R. 56/2004, confirming the findings of the Labour Court that the termination of services of the workman was illegal and improper, and the plea of loss of confidence taken by the employer. Learned Single Judge however substituted the award of reinstatement with 20% back wages, to the award of compensation only from the date of termination till the date of judgment, to be calculated at the rate of salary which was drawn by the workman at the time of termination of his services at Rs. 8000/ - p.m. or so.
(2.) IN D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 414/2014 Mukut Behari vs. Executive Director. Hotel Clarks Amer & Ors., the same judgment of learned Single Judge has been challenged by the workman against the directions issued by learned Single Judge substituting the relief of reinstatement with 20% back wages, to the award of compensation. Brief facts giving rise to these Special Appeals are that Shri Mukut Behari, the workman was serving as Junior Captain in the Hotel on 2.3.1992, drawing a salary of Rs. 4200/ - p.m. On 8.1.2003, he was given a charge -sheet alleging that on 29.12.2002, when he was on duty in the Jharokha Restaurant of the Hotel, he alongwith Abhay Kant Jha and Satyavan Singh were working as Junior Captain and Puran Singh was working as Steward. On that day, in the evening, a guest came for dinner on table No. 2 -A. She was given the menu card by Shri Satyavan Singh, on which she preferred to take buffet, which was priced at Rs. 455/ - with tax. She paid Rs. 500/ - to Shri Satyavan Singh, which was distributed between the workman, Puran Singh, Satyavan Singh and Abhay Kant Jha, jointly in consultation with common intention, on which, Shri Satyavan Singh, in order to cause loss to the Hotel, informed the guest with malicious intention that if she (guest) will not insist upon the bill, he will return Rs. 50/ - to her and accordingly, Shri Satyavan Singh returned Rs. 50/ - to the guest and in this manner, without issuing KOT (Kitchen Order Transfer) or bill, Rs. 350/ - were taken from the guest, out of which, Rs. 100/ - was kept by Shri Satyavan Singh, Rs. 100/ - by Shri Puran Singh, Rs. 00/ - by the workman, and Rs. 80/ - by Shri Abhay Kant Jha, and in this manner, they dishonestly misappropriated the money belonging to the Hotel.
(3.) IN his defence to the charges, the workman stated that on 29.12.2002, he was on duty to set and clean the tables. After completion of his duty hours, Shri Satyavan Singh had given him Rs. 100/ - from the tips received by him. The workman was not aware as to in what manner the money was taken. The workman neither misused the money nor misappropriated it. In the domestic enquiry, the Enquiry Officer, after recording evidence, submitted his report, on which the workman was dismissed from service on 8.5.2003, despite the fact that his duty was only to set and clean the tables and he had not realized any money from the guest. The workman made an application, on which a reference was made by the State Government to the Labour Court No. 1, Jaipur under Sec. 10(1)(c) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 vide Notification dt. 8.12.2003, to adjudicate whether the termination of services of the workman on 8.5.2003 by the Executive Director, Hotel Clarks Amer, Jaipur was proper and legal and if not, the relief to which he is entitled?;