DECISION ' The circumstances culminating in this appeal are as follows: ' The respondent was appointed as a waiter on 7-10-1982 and was promoted as a Captain from 1- 4-1985. On the night of 9th July, 1988 while on duty at the Fanoos, one of the lounges of the Hotel, Zamir Ahmed Naqvi while on a round, had found the movement of the respondent somewhat suspicious. He waited and found some customers, who were members of Swissair Crew, demanding the return of the balance of the payments made to the respondent. He further heard that the cheque also had not been given to the guests on Table No,
2. The matter was reported to the higher authorities and the show cause notice was issued on 13-7-1988 which was replied to by the respondent . There was an enquiry held and on the basis of the report the respondent came to be dismissed on 8-10-1988.
2. The respondent had sent a grievance notice which was replied to and finding no satisfaction had filed the grievance application before the Labour Court.
3. The appellant in their Written Reply maintained that there was a fair enquiry conducted against the respondent in which he was given full opportunity to defend himself, and the dismissal order was based on the charge of fraud and dishonesty which was duly substantiated against him.
4. The respondent was his only witness. Moosa Khan and Hameed Mohsin were the witnesses on behalf of the present appellant.
5. The contentions raised on behalf of the respondent that the order of dismissal was from an Authority not competent to do so having been found in the appellant's favour is not necessary to advert to the same. The only question which remains to be examined is whether the order of dismissal will pass muster.
6. It is to be seen that Zamir Naqvi who had detected the suspicious behaviour of the respondent and reported the incident to the authorities had not been examined before the Labour Court at all.
Even during the enquiry he did not agree to make any statement before Moosa Khan the Enquiry Officer though he was subjected to cross-examination. Even the Cashier with whom the payment of the bill was deposited had not been examined either before the Labour Court or during the enquiry proceedings. As to the Swissair Crew, there is no report in writing from them either. It is nobody's case that they could be prevailed upon to be examined in the enquiry proceedings. It is any body's guess as to what the schedule was. But they could not be here for days.
7. The solitary witness of the incident was Zamir Naqvi. He has not been made available. The allegation of the respondent that he had been axed because he was an active member of the trade union, does not deserve any serious consideration. He was not even an office-bearer.
However the fact remains and that admitted by Hameed Mohsin specifically, and also not denied by Zamir Naqvi, that the collection made from Table No, 2 had been duly deposited. The time of the incident according to Zamir Naqvi was 23-45 hours and the amount deposited shown as 25-48 hours and the delay was nominal. He had further conceded that there could be difference in the time as between his watch and the machine watch.
8. The version of the respondent is that at the relevant moment he was the only attendant in Fanoos. The waiter and the bus boy were not there at all. There is no other version on record. Even on the showing of Zamir Naqvi the money collected from the Table No, 2 was in the hands of the respondent. True that the appellants are an International chain of hotels and have got rules and procedure for the receipt of the payment and the issuance of the cheques, but there could be justification for a little laxity as the respondent was all by himself and there were guests as the record shows at least on 3 tables at that time, in the lounge in question.
9. Looking to all these circumstances I do not find any reason to differ from the findings arrived at by the learned Presiding Officer. I will therefore uphold the order and dismiss the appeal.