Justice KS Hemalekha of the Karnataka High Court ruled that the Labour Court cannot reinstate an employee out of sympathy if the employee is involved in a serious act of theft. This decision came while the court was hearing a petition from The Taj West End Hotel, which challenged a tribunal’s order that had directed the hotel to reinstate an employee, K Venkatesh, and pay him back wages after his dismissal.
Background of the Case
In 2015, The Taj West End Hotel issued a charge sheet to K Venkatesh, who worked in the hotel’s kitchen, after he was found carrying a pouch of cooking oil without authorization after work hours. According to the hotel, a security guard found the oil sachet in the employee’s vehicle. When the guard tried to retrieve it, a struggle ensued, leading to the sachet breaking open.
The hotel’s disciplinary authority, after reviewing an inquiry report and other evidence, decided to dismiss the employee. However, Venkatesh appealed this decision before the Labour Court, which sided with him, directing the hotel to reinstate him and provide back wages.
Arguments Presented
- The Hotel’s Argument: The hotel argued that the proven misconduct involved theft, which warranted dismissal. They contended that in such cases, the Labour Court should not interfere with the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss the employee.
- The Employee’s Argument: Venkatesh argued that the punishment of dismissal was too harsh and disproportionate to the alleged act. He claimed that the Labour Court had rightly concluded that his dismissal was unnecessary given the minor nature of the incident.
Court’s Observations and Ruling
After examining the records, Justice Hemalekha noted that the Labour Court did not properly consider the employee’s response to the charge sheet. The court found that this case was serious, involving theft and misuse of trust. The judge emphasized that theft, whether involving a small or large item, undermines the employer’s trust in the employee.
Justice Hemalekha also noted:
- Admission of Guilt and CCTV Evidence: The employee had admitted in his explanation that the oil sachet was found in his motorcycle pouch, and CCTV footage confirmed his attempt to leave quickly after the security guard discovered the sachet.
- Justification for Dismissal: Since there was sufficient evidence proving Venkatesh’s involvement in the theft, the court concluded that the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss him was appropriate. Justice Hemalekha stated that the Labour Court should not have replaced the hotel’s judgment with its own, especially in a case involving trust-based work and serious misconduct.
- No Evidence of False Charges: The judge also dismissed any notion that the charges were fabricated to remove the employee. There was no evidence to support such a claim, either in the employee’s response or in any other documentation presented.
Final Decision
The Karnataka High Court allowed the petition from The Taj West End Hotel, setting aside the Labour Court’s order for reinstatement and back wages. The court upheld the disciplinary authority’s decision to dismiss Venkatesh for serious misconduct, affirming that reinstatement out of sympathy was not warranted in a case involving theft and breach of trust.