2014 (2) TMI 585 - HC - Indian Laws

Industrial dispute Legality of dismissal from service - Petitioner contended that the only thing established during the enquiry was that the petitioner was found in possession of some chocolates at the time when her bag was checked by the security guard Mr. Vinay Kumar and that mere possession of chocolates by the petitioner did not mean that those chocolates were stolen by her - Held that - The findings of the Labour Court are totally unreasonable and so unsustainable since it was required to be seen by the Labour Court whether the charge of theft of chocolates, and not merely the recovery of chocolates, had actually been established or not in the enquiry since as far as the possession of chocolates by the petitioner is concerned, the same even as per the management s own witnesses was made known to them by the petitioner herself when she was asked to have her bag checked - this is not a case where there was some evidence before the enquiry officer on the basis of which the petitioner could be held guilty of having committed theft and, in fact, this is a case of no evidence at all, as far as the charge of chocolates found with the petitioner being stolen ones is concerned. It was for the management to prove that the chocolates in possession of the petitioner were stolen chocolates and not for her to show that they were not stolen and the management cannot be said to have discharged its burden even on the basis of preponderance of probabilities - there was actually no complaint of theft of chocolate since the misconduct of the petitioner cannot be said to have been established by the respondent-management, the petition deserves is allowed thus, the petitioner is ordered to be reinstated in service since by declining the relief of reinstatement to her this Court would be in fact punishing her even after she stands exonerated of the charge of theft Decided in favour of Petitioner.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Fairness and propriety of the enquiry conducted against the petitioner.
2. Legality and justification of the petitioner's dismissal from service.
3. Relief to be granted to the petitioner.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Fairness and Propriety of the Enquiry:
The Labour Court initially addressed whether the enquiry conducted against the petitioner was fair and proper. The petitioner was accused of theft, specifically of possessing eleven chocolates belonging to British Airways, for which the respondent was the custodian. The Labour Court concluded that the enquiry was fair and the charge was duly proved. However, the High Court found this conclusion unreasonable. The High Court noted that the only fact established during the enquiry was the petitioner's possession of chocolates, not that they were stolen. The security guard's testimony indicated that the petitioner had disclosed having chocolates in her bag before it was checked, which necessitated further evidence from the management to prove theft. The Labour Court's failure to critically assess the evidence led the High Court to deem the enquiry's findings unsustainable.

2. Legality and Justification of Dismissal:
The Labour Court's final award deemed the dismissal disproportionate to the misconduct. It directed the management to reconsider the penalty, suggesting a punishment proportionate to the misconduct but not necessarily reinstatement. The High Court, however, found the Labour Court's decision flawed. The High Court emphasized that the management failed to prove the chocolates were stolen, as no evidence was presented to show a shortage in stock or a complaint of theft. The High Court highlighted that the burden of proof lay with the management, not the petitioner. The Labour Court's acceptance of the enquiry officer's findings without substantial evidence was deemed perverse.

3. Relief to be Granted:
Given the lack of evidence proving theft, the High Court set aside the Labour Court's award. The High Court ordered the petitioner's reinstatement, noting that denying reinstatement would effectively punish her despite being exonerated of the theft charge. However, considering the long period she had not worked, the High Court awarded her only 40% of back wages.

Conclusion:
The High Court's judgment critically examined the Labour Court's handling of the enquiry and the evidence presented. It underscored the necessity for substantial proof in allegations of theft and the importance of a fair enquiry process. The judgment reinstated the petitioner with partial back wages, correcting what it deemed an unjust dismissal based on insufficient evidence.