1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO.327/2001. Shri Joseph Fernandes, C/o Shri Hilario Mendes Perizona MOIRA Bardez-Goa. ... Petitioner. V/s 1. The Industrial Tribunal Government of Goa by its Presiding Officer, Junta House, 2nd floor, Panaji-Goa. 2. Indian Resort Hotels Ltd. Fort Aguada Beach Resort Sinquerim, Bardez-Goa. ... Respondents. Mr. D.P. Bhise, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sonak, Advocate for the Respondent no.2. CORAM :R. C. CHAVAN, J. DATE: 27th AUGUST, 2008. ORAL JUDGMENT Workman takes exception to the Award of the learned 2 Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Government of Goa in the Reference No.IT/46/94, whereby the learned Presiding Officer held that respondent managements action in termination of the services of the petitioner was legal and justified, disentitling for the petitioner to any relief. 2. Facts in context of which the petitioner has been required to approach to this Court are as under: The petitioner was appointed as Junior Resort Attendant (room boy) with the respondent no.2 in the year 1987. On 25.10.1992 a guest from room No.110 called up the reception and complained that one of the room boys was robbing. The receptionist alerted the Manager Shri Khosla. Shri Khosla then called all the boys who were available around the place and the guest identified the petitioner as the boy who had run away. The management issued a charge-sheet wherein it was stated that around 10.00 p.m. on 25.10.1992 the petitioner had entered room no.110 in the absence of the guests staying in the said room. When the guests returned to the room, they found the petitioner inside the room. On being questioning by the guests, the petitioner admitted that he had taken Rs.110/- from a purse, which was lying open in the room. The petitioner allegedly 3 requested the guest not to report to the management. In the meantime as the guest started telephoning, the petitioner allegedly ran away towards cottages. The guests then complained to the reception and when the manager on duty Shri R.D. Khosla met the guests, Shri Khosla was informed about the incident. Upon the petitioner being asked by Shri Khosla as to whether the petitioner had been to the room, the petitioner refused. Shri Khosla then called two other room boys on duty, and then took all the three to room no.110 where the guest and his family members identified the petitioner as the person who had entered the room, though the petitioner continued to deny. 3. Statement of the guest was not recorded and was not tendered at the inquiry. At the inquiry the management tendered necessary evidence which was considered by the Inquiry Officer who concluded by his report dated 7.4.1993 that the charge of commission of “an act subversive of discipline of good behaviour on the premises of the establishment, adversely affecting the working of discipline or reputation of the establishment” was proved. A show cause notice was issued to the petitioner by Area General Manager, calling upon the petitioner to show cause within 7 days as to why his services should not be terminated. After considering the reply, by an Order dated 2.6.1993, the Area General Manager terminated the services of the 4 petitioner. 4. An Industrial dispute was referred by the Government of Goa to the Industrial Tribunal. After considering the cases laid by workman as well as management before it, the Tribunal passed the impugned Award. 5. I have heard learned Advocate Shri Bhise, for the petitioner and learned Advocate Sonak for the respondent/management. The first contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner is that the petitioner had been appointed by a General Manager of the respondent company. The termination was however effected by Area General Manager and not by the manager himself. Therefore according to him since the authority terminating the services of the petitioner could not have been lesser than the General Manager himself, termination was bad and that the Industrial Court should have so held. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the respondent, there is nothing to show that the Area General Manager is an authority to subordinate to General Manager or lacked the power to take disciplinary action against the petitioner. Therefore merely because the word “area” is prefixed to the designation of the authority, termination of the services of the 5 petitioner by it cannot be held to be bad. 6. The learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the complaint about the petitioner committing theft was serious in nature. Yet no report was made to the Police. He has also grievance that the statement of the guest was not recorded and not tendered in evidence, at the inquiry. It has to be realized that the respondent is a Hotel at a tourist resort where people come for relaxing themselves and not for being booked for visits to Criminal Courts or attendance at disciplinary inquiries. Therefore, if the management decided not to make a complaint to the Police, or not to involve the guest in the disciplinary inquiry, it cannot be said that the management had acted in an unusual manner, prejudicial to the petitioner. 7. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that it has been held in several decisions referred to by him in the grounds G. K. & L., raised in the petition that the hearsay evidence could not form foundation of conclusion of guilt of the delinquent. In this case the evidence tendered is that of Mr. Khosla who stated that the guest had pointed to the petitioner as the person who had been to the guest's room no.110 and who was seen stealing Rs.110/- from an open purse. Since the Disciplinary Authority was not enquiring into charge of theft, 6 but of conduct which was prejudicial to the reputation of the hotel, the evidence of Shri Khosla does not become hearsay. 8. The learned Counsel for the petitioner next submitted that the report in the Log-Book of the reception desk which is at page 27 of the paper book, does not refer to the guest having caught the petitioner, or having seen the petitioner committing theft from the purse, or having admitted that he had committed theft. Even the statement of the petitioner which is at page 29 of the paper book makes no reference to the petitioner having been questioned about being caught by the guests and the petitioner running away when the guest was making a telephone call as has been stated in the chargesheet. The learned Counsel for the petitioner is seeking to apply standards in Police investigations to a domestic inquiry. The report in the Log-Book at page 27 was obviously bound to be sketchy. It was merely a note in respect of the telephone call received. The receptionist was not expected to record a telephonic statement of the guest or to inquire with the guest about the incident, Nor was she expected to note a detailed account of the entire conversation on the telephone. Same would hold good about the note of petitioner's interrogation by the manager which is at page 29. 7 9. The petitioner cannot have grievance that he did not know what charges he had to meet, because the charge sheet elaborates that the petitioner was infact caught by the guest, he admitted his guilt before the guest, pleaded that they should not report and ran away on seeing the guest lifting the telephone. The petitioner has not been able to show any animus that the guest was likely to have in pointing to the petitioner when he was taken by the manager with two other room boys. He has also not been able to show that the manager himself had any animus to pick up the petitioner alone and exclude two other room boys as having been identified by the guest. The contention of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in order to protect the reputation of the hotel somebody has to made a scapegoat and that the management chose the petitioner, cannot be accepted because again, while choosing a scapegoat, the manager would have some consideration in mind and there is nothing to show that Shri Khosla had any specific reason for falsely picking up the petitioner. 10. In any case, all these aspects are in the realm of appreciation of evidence which was the function of the inquiry Officer. The learned Presiding Officer of Industrial Tribunal has, an reappraisal of the entire record placed before him, found no illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the Inquiry Officer. Jurisdiction 8 of a writ Court could be invoked to correct an error if it is shown that the findings recorded are perverse or not based on any evidence at all. Such is not the present case. 11. The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner was employed with the respondent from 1987 to 1992 and that there was no such incident in this long period. He submitted that this clean conduct of the petitioner for 5 years should have weighed with the management while deciding quantum of punishment. Complaint of a guest about theft by an employee of a resort is sufficiently serious to ensure that the employee does not remain on the premises of the resort. Once it is held that the charge was proved, there should have been no question of considering a lesser punishment of retaining the employee on the establishment or the manager, waiting for a chance of another disaster. 12. In view of this the impugned Award by the learned Presiding Officer of the Industrial Court does not call for any interference. Petition is dismissed. Rule discharged. R. C. CHAVAN, J. cg/-