Can’t reinstate worker if case involves theft

High Court overturns tribunal order to take hotel staffer back after he was caught stealing oil

The Karnataka High Court has ruled that labour courts cannot order reinstatement of workers solely on sympathetic grounds, particularly in cases involving serious theft allegations.

Justice KS Hemalekha, presiding over a single judge bench, delivered this verdict whilst accepting a petition from The Taj West End Hotel, overturning the tribunal’s previous directive for reinstatement and back wages payment to K Venkatesh. In 2015, the hotel’s disciplinary authority issued a chargesheet to the employee, who worked in the kitchen, after he was discovered carrying an unauthorised pouch of cooking oil after his shift.

The employee’s defence stated that when security personnel discovered the oil sachet in his vehicle’s pouch, he was caught off guard and attempted to retrieve it, resulting in the sachet breaking during the struggle.

Subsequently, the Disciplinary Authority reviewed the enquiry report and available evidence before issuing a dismissal order, which was later successfully challenged in the labour court.

The hotel argued that proven theft misconduct warranted dismissal exclusively.

They maintained that in theft cases, the labour court should not have interfered with the disciplinary authority’s punishment decision.

The employee’s counsel argued that the Labour Court correctly determined the punishment was disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and its severity.

Upon examining the records, the court observed that the Labour Court’s contested award failed to consider the employee’s explanation to the chargesheet.

The court stated, “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.”

The court determined, “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.”

Additionally, the HC noted, “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.”

The court remarked 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 petition was ultimately granted by the court.

Kumaraswamy to go to HC over FIR
Union minister HD Kumaraswamy, alongside his son Nikhil Kumaraswamy and associate Suresh Babu, have filed a petition in the Karnataka High Court requesting the dismissal of the FIR lodged against them by Bengaluru Police regarding alleged threats to a senior IPS officer.

The act of theft once proved, the question is mistrust by the employer; in such cases, it is uncalled for by way of sympathy to reinstate the staffer into service–HC bench

The petitioners contend that the complaint filed by IPS officer M Chandrashekhar, who heads the Lokayukta Special Investigation Team (SIT), was filed with ill intent and political motivations.

According to their submission, Chandrashekhar, who is investigating Kumaraswamy in an alleged mining scam, levelled false accusations against the union minister and others because the SIT was unable to arrest Kumaraswamy, who had obtained anticipatory bail.