The Karnataka High Court stated that bringing back an employee after proving theft or misappropriation just out of sympathy is not appropriate.
The Karnataka High Court has ruled that if theft or misappropriation is proven, reinstating an employee out of sympathy is not appropriate. The Court supported the dismissal of an employee by the Taj West End Hotel, overturning the Labour Court’s earlier decision to reinstate the employee with full back pay and continuity of service. The Court stated that any proven theft or misappropriation justifies dismissal, regardless of the amount involved, due to the resulting loss of trust from the employer. Justice K.S. Hemalekha noted that the case involved serious charges of theft and misappropriation, emphasizing that once proven, the employer’s mistrust makes it inappropriate to reinstate the employee for sympathetic reasons.
A security guard discovered the employee in the kitchen of the Taj West End Hotel with an oil sachet concealed in his motorcycle. When questioned, a scuffle ensued, causing the sachet to burst and spill oil on the guard’s wireless device, rendering it unusable. The employee then fled on his motorcycle while the guard went to alert the duty security officer. Following the guard’s complaint, the hotel management issued a charge-sheet and suspended the employee pending an inquiry. The Disciplinary Authority ultimately dismissed the employee. He then contested the dismissal by filing a dispute under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Labour Court later overturned the dismissal, ordering the hotel to reinstate him with full back wages and continuity of service.
The High Court stated that reinstating an employee based on sympathy was not appropriate in this situation. The Court noted that the security guard’s claims were backed by CCTV footage, which showed the oil sachet and the employee leaving the site. The Labour Court could not simply rely on sympathy when using its authority under Section 11A of the ID Act to order reinstatement and back wages, especially since the evidence clearly indicated the employee was guilty of misconduct. The dismissal for such serious misconduct was not excessive. The Labour Court wrongly replaced the dismissal with its own judgment in a serious theft case, where the employee’s role required trust. There was no evidence or claims suggesting the charges were false.
The Court further remarked that the Labour Court treated the case like a criminal trial and mistakenly concluded that the charges were fabricated and that the employee faced discrimination. This conclusion was against the evidence available. The Labour Court had no grounds to interfere with the dismissal, and the cases cited by the respondent’s counsel were not relevant to this situation. As a result, the High Court approved the petition.
Cause Title: The Taj West End Hotel v. K. Venkatesh
Appearance:
Petitioner: Senior Advocate S.N. Murthy; Advocate Somashekar
Respondent: Advocate K. Srinivasa
