Dismissal For Theft Justified When Position Of Trust Is Violated, Reinstatement Not Automatic Remedy And Value Of Stolen Property Irrelevant: Bombay HC

Background

Nilesh Kanojia, a security associate at JW Marriott Juhu, Mumbai, was dismissed after two incidents of misconduct. On 27 April 2017, Kanojia was involved in the theft of two cake boxes from the hotel, which were taken out of the premises using a hotel car. CCTV footage showed him instructing his co-worker, Vinit Ghai, to remove the cakes, and further revealed that Kanojia took the cakes to his home and a friend's location. The second incident occurred in November 2017 when Kanojia, along with union leaders, staged protests inside the hotel against his suspension. He entered the hotel lobby multiple times, demanding the revocation of his suspension and disrupting the establishment's operations.

After an internal enquiry, Kanojia was dismissed on 10 June 2018. He approached the Labour Court, which ruled that while the enquiry was fair and proper, the dismissal was disproportionate. The Labour Court directed his reinstatement without back wages but with continuity of service. The Industrial Court upheld this decision. JW Marriott then filed a writ petition challenging these orders.

Arguments

JW Marriott argued that the charges of theft and misconduct were clearly established in the internal enquiry, and the Labour Court erred by ordering reinstatement. The hotel emphasized that Kanojia's actions, especially his misconduct with union leaders, escalated the matter far beyond the theft of cakes. The theft itself was a serious breach of trust, particularly given that Kanojia was in the security department, entrusted with protecting the hotel's property.

The respondent, Kanojia, contended that taking cakes was a minor infraction that did not justify dismissal. He argued that the punishment of termination was excessive, especially since the items taken were of little value. Kanojia also maintained that his involvement with the union was a legitimate exercise of his rights to address grievances regarding his suspension.

Court's Reasoning

Firstly, the court recognized that employees in the security department hold a position of trust, with the specific duty of protecting the property of the employer. Kanojia's breach of this trust by stealing hotel property—whether small or large—could not be dismissed as a minor infraction. Secondly, the court rejected the Labour Court's view that the punishment was disproportionate, reasoning that in a high-standard professional environment like a five-star hotel, even seemingly minor infractions, when committed by employees in sensitive roles, have serious repercussions. By holding a key position in loss prevention, Kanojia had an obligation to demonstrate exemplary behavior. His misconduct not only violated his specific role but also set a damaging precedent that could erode discipline within the establishment. The value of the stolen property was irrelevant; what mattered was the violation of the fundamental duty of safeguarding the employer's assets.

Thirdly, the court pointed out that Kanojia's actions following the theft further exacerbated his situation. His involvement with union leaders in disrupting hotel operations, demanding revocation of his suspension, was seen as an act of coercion rather than legitimate grievance redressal. The court held that entering the hotel lobby repeatedly, in the presence of guests, with union members to pressure the management was a serious violation of workplace norms. This behavior could not be tolerated in a high-end establishment that relied heavily on reputation and customer service.

In its detailed analysis, the court held that Kanojia's conduct went beyond a simple act of theft. His actions undermined the professional environment of the hotel, disturbed its operations, and constituted a significant breach of discipline. The court also noted that Kanojia's dismissal was justified because, in such environments, restoring trust is difficult after such misconduct, especially when the employee is part of the security team. The Labour Court's invocation of the Probation of Offenders Act was dismissed as irrelevant since the case concerned workplace discipline and not criminal reformation. Thus, the court quashed the orders of the Labour and Industrial Courts. Instead of reinstatement, Kanojia was awarded a lump-sum compensation of Rs. 5 lakhs, in addition to the Rs. 1.82 lakhs already paid to him at the time of dismissal.

Decided on: 16 October 2024

Citation: 2024:BHC-AS:41689

Counsel for the Petitioner: Mr. R.V. Paranjape with Mr. T.R. Yadav

Counsel for the Respondent: Mr. Yatin R. Shah

Click Here To Read/Download The Order