Theft By Employee Leads To Mistrust In Him, Labour Court Cannot Order Reinstatement On Sympathy: Karnataka High Court
The Karnataka High Court has said that the Labour Court cannot on the ground of sympathy alone direct reinstatement of a workman, when he is involved in a serious case of theft.A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha held thus while allowing a petition filed by The Taj West End Hotel and set aside the order of the tribunal directing reinstatement and payment of back wages to an employee,...
The Karnataka High Court has said that the Labour Court cannot on the ground of sympathy alone direct reinstatement of a workman, when he is involved in a serious case of theft.
A single judge bench of Justice K S Hemalekha held thus while allowing a petition filed by The Taj West End Hotel and set aside the order of the tribunal directing reinstatement and payment of back wages to an employee, K Venkatesh.
The disciplinary authority had in 2015, issued chargesheet to the employee who was working in the hotel's kitchen after he was found to be unauthorisedly carrying a pouch of cooking oil with him after work.
In his response it was said that when the security guard took out the oil sachet from the pouch of the employee's vehicle, he was surprised and tried to take the sachet from the security guard who resisted it, thereby breaking open the oil sachet.
Following which the Disciplinary Authority on considering the enquiry report and material placed, passed an order of dismissal. The order was challenged before the Labour court which came to be allowed.
The petitioner contended that the proved act of misconduct of theft deserves only dismissal from service and nothing else. When the misconduct is about theft and in such cases, the punishment imposed by the disciplinary authority could not have been interfered with, by the Labour Court.
The employee contended that the Labour Court has rightly held that the alleged misconduct and its gravity is concerned, the punishment to the respondent was disproportionate.
On going through the records the court noted the Labour Court in the impugned award failed to consider the explanation to the charge sheet.
It said, “The present case, the case is of misappropriation, theft, where the charges are serious in nature. The act of theft / misappropriation once proved, either it be a small or large or a small thing, the question is mistrust by the employer, wherein in such cases, it is uncalled for by way of sympathy to reinstate the employee into service.”
It held, “The respondent having admitted in his explanation that the oil sachet was found from the pouch of his motor cycle and the CCTV Footage clearly revealed the presence of the oil sachet and the respondent speeding away on the vehicle when the security guard had been to call on landline, the Labour Court ought to have held that the charges are proved and the respondent deserves punishment of dismissal.”
Further it said “When the material on record was sufficient to hold the respondent was guilty of charges, the punishment of dismissal for the misconduct cannot be said to be disproportionate, the Labour Court was not justified in substituting the order of dismissal to its own judgment, when it involved a serious case of theft, the nature of work which was entrusted to the respondent was a work of trust.”
Observing that “The Labour Court could not have assumed that false charges are made in order to remove him from service, when there is no pleading or evidence whatsoever in this regard either in explanation to the charge-sheet or in the claim statement or in the evidence of the respondent.”
The court allowed the petition.
Appearance: Senior Advocate S.N Murthy for Advocate Somashekar for Petitioner.
Advocate K Srinivasa for Respondent.
Citation No: 2024 LiveLaw (Kar) 459
Case Title: The Taj West End Hotel AND K Venkatesh
Case No: WRIT PETITION No.1474/2020