Dismissal For Theft Valid When Trust Is Breached; Value Of Stolen Goods Irrelevant: Bombay HC
The Bombay High Court affirmed that dismissal for theft is justified when an employee in a position of trust violates that trust, emphasizing that reinstatement is not an automatic remedy in such cases.
The Court ruled that the value of the stolen property is irrelevant; what matters is the breach of trust inherent in the employee's role, particularly in sensitive positions like security.
Respondent was dismissed after two significant incidents of misconduct following an internal inquiry. He subsequently challenged his dismissal in the Labour Court, which ruled that while the inquiry was fair, the punishment was disproportionate. The Labour Court ordered his reinstatement without back wages but recognized continuity of service. The Industrial Court upheld this decision, prompting JW Marriott to file a writ petition contesting these rulings.
A Single Judge Bench of Justice Sandeep V. Marne emphasized that theft by an employee in a security role constitutes serious misconduct, irrespective of the value of the items stolen, due to the inherent trust associated with their position.
Additionally, his disruptive conduct during union protests further validated the hotel's decision to terminate his employment. While nullifying the reinstatement order, the Court granted him a compensation of ₹5 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement, taking into account the overall circumstances of the case.
The Court added, “I am of the view that the findings recorded by the Labour Court that the punishment is shocking disproportionate are unsustainable. Considering the acts of stealing hotel’s property and creating ruckus in hotel’s lobby through union leaders, Respondent cannot be reinstated in service. This is not a case where loss of confidence by the employer towards him can be directed to be restored. The Industrial Court ought to have corrected the perverse findings recorded by the Labour Court in exercise of its revisionary jurisdiction under Section 44 of the MRTU & PULP Act.”
Advocate R.V. Paranjape appeared for the Petitioner and Advocate Yatin R. Shah appeared for the Respondent.
The respondent’s counsel argued that stealing the cakes was a minor offense that did not merit termination. He claimed that the punishment was excessively harsh, especially considering the low value of the items involved. He further asserted that his actions with the union were legitimate efforts to address his grievances regarding his suspension.
The Court began by highlighting that employees in the security sector are expected to uphold a high level of trust, as they are tasked with safeguarding the employer's property. His act of stealing, regardless of the item’s value, represented a serious breach of this trust and could not be trivialized. The Court dismissed the Labour Court’s assessment of the punishment as disproportionate, arguing that in a high-stakes environment like a five-star hotel, even minor infractions can have grave consequences, particularly when committed by those in sensitive positions. His role in loss prevention demanded exemplary conduct; his theft not only undermined his duties but also threatened the establishment's discipline.
The Court also pointed out that his subsequent actions—particularly his involvement with union leaders in protests—intensified the severity of his misconduct. His repeated entries into the hotel, alongside union members, were viewed as attempts to coerce management rather than legitimate grievances. Such behavior was unacceptable in a luxury hotel, where maintaining a reputable image and providing exceptional customer service are paramount.
The Court concluded that his behavior went beyond a mere theft; it disrupted hotel operations and constituted a significant breach of workplace discipline. The Court emphasized that restoring trust after such actions, especially from someone in a security role, is particularly challenging. The Labour Court's reference to the Probation of Offenders Act was deemed irrelevant, as the case primarily dealt with workplace discipline rather than criminal rehabilitation.
Consequently, the Court quashed the Labour and Industrial Courts' orders and instead awarded respondent a lump-sum compensation of ₹5 lakhs, in addition to the ₹1.82 lakhs he had already received at the time of his dismissal.
Cause Title: M/s. J.W. Marriott Juhu v. Nilesh Kanojia & Anr., [2024:BHC-AS:41689]
Appearance:
Petitioner: Advocates R.V. Paranjape with T.R. Yadav
