High Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Labour Court's confirmation of dismissal for theft. The Court held the finding of fact was not perverse and dismissal was proportionate due to loss of employer confidence.
Writ petition dismissed; petitioner not reinstated; no costs awarded.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Reserved on : 27.04.2022 Pronounced on : 15.06.2022
Coram
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMED SHAFFIQ
W.P. No.7829 of 2012
D.Venkatesan ...Petitioner
Vs.
Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, to call for the entire records connected with the proceedings of the 2nd respondent in I.D.No.277/2007 dated 30.06.2011 and quash the same consequently direct the 1st respondent to reinstate the petitioner with continuity of service, back wages and all other attendant benefits.
For Petitioner : Mrs.M.Muthu Yazhini for Mr.K.Thilageswaran
This writ petition is filed challenging the order of the labour Court confirming the order of dismissal passed by the first respondent on the premise that the petitioner had committed theft of diesel and thereby found guilty of misconduct in terms of the company certified standing orders.
second shift from 02.00 p.m. to 10.00 p.m. by operating a Front End Loader equipment. Around 06.40 p.m. the petitioner handed over the Walkie-talkie to the other driver one Mr.Elangovan and returned around 07.10. p.m. after taking food. When the petitioner got back he found that there was certain enquiries being made with regard to theft of diesel from another Front End Loader parked in the Bagasse Yard. The petitioner was informed by Elangovan, that he had seen two Security Officers enquiring a contract employee by name Suresh with regard to the theft of diesel. The petitioner received back the walkie-talkie from Elangovan and continued to operate the Front End Loader. Around 09.20 p.m the petitioner left for control room to enter the log book. As it was raining the petitioner waited in the tool room and reached the main gate to punch the card at 10.10 p.m. Then the Assistant Security Officer Mr.Shanmugam informed the petitioner that he was called by the Senior Manager Mr.S.M.Ramesh. After, a brief enquiry the petitioner left home around 11.30p.m. The petitioner continued to attend the night shifts on 05.05.2005 and 06.05.2005.
Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement with continuity of service, back wages and other attendant benefits as prayed for in this petition?
some foul play kept a watch, at that time, the petitioner reached the spot driving the No.1 Front End Loader removed the hose, closed the lid of the plastic can and handed over the can filled with diesel to the said Suresh and moved away with his vehicle from the spot. The Security Officers apprehended Suresh and enquired him about the diesel can. Suresh informed that the diesel can was being taken only at the instance of the petitioner for the purpose of handing over the same to the petitioner's brother. The statement of the Security Officers were also obtained and marked as Ex.M15 and Ex.M16 which corroborates the fact that the petitioner was in fact involved in the theft of diesel. Suresh had accepted theft of diesel vide his statement dated 04.05.2005, marked as Ex.W2 and Elangovan had given a statement dated 05.05.2005 marked as Ex.W3, and that a complaint was also lodged against the said Suresh before the Nellikuppam Police Station, by the security guard and F.I.R. was registered. Importantly, said Suresh admitted to theft of diesel, vide Ex.M19, and also stated that it was committed at the behest and for the benefit of the petitioner.
the labour Court having found that the petitioner had committed theft of diesel and thus guilty of misconduct, the punishment of dismissal from service is proportionate and warranted. For in a case of theft, it is not the quantum which matters but the act which results in the loss of confidence of employer in employee. In this regard, it may be relevant to refer to the following judgment:
A.P. SRTC v. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, (2007) 1 SCC 222 : (2007) 1 SCC (L&S) 151 : 2006 SCC OnLine SC 1170 at page 226
Karnataka SRTC v. M.G.Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 : (2012) 1 SCC (L&S) 171 : 2011 SCC Online SC 1489 at page 454
30.In case of theft, the quantum of theft is not important and what is important is the loss of confidence of employer in employee.
Sd/-
Assistant Registrar(CS-VII)
//True Copy//
Psa
Sub Assistant Registrar
To :
W.P. No.7829 of 2012
SKM(CO) UMA(29/06/2022)
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court can interfere with the finding of fact regarding theft of diesel under Article 226.
Whether dismissal is a proportionate punishment when an employee loses employer confidence due to theft.
Whether the Labour Court order dismissing the petitioner warrants interference.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
A.P. SRTC v. Raghuda Siva Sankar PrasadFollowed¶26
A.P. SRTC v. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad, (2007) 1 SCC 222 · Who else cites this
Karnataka SRTC v. M.G.Vittal RaoFollowed¶30
Karnataka SRTC v. M.G.Vittal Rao, (2012) 1 SCC 442 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
D.Venkatesan
The Management, M/s.E.I.D.Parry (India) Ltd
The Presiding Officer, Cuddalore Labour Court
Mohammed Shaffiq
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
Mohammed Shaffiq
Parties & counsel
