HC Upholds Dismissal of Employee Found Guilty of Theft

Case Details: Baroda District Co-Operative Milk Producers Union Ltd. vs. Rameshbhai Shankarbhai Prajapati -[2025] 178 taxmann.com 533 (HC-Gujarat)

Judiciary and Counsel Details

• Mrs M.K. Thakker, J.
• Manish Bhatt, Sr. Adv., Munjaal M. Bhatt & Ms Shailee Joshi for the Petitioner.
• I.G. Joshi for the Respondent.

Facts of the Case

In the instant case, the Respondent was working in the production department of the petitioner’s dairy and was entrusted with the duty to look after the day-to-day affairs of the petitioner’s dairy, pertaining to the production of various milk products.

The Security personnel of the petitioner observed that certain cashew nuts were lying on the floor beneath lockers used by the respondent. Upon enquiry, the respondent gave his written explanation admitting that he had stolen cashew nuts from the production department of the petitioner dairy for his personal consumption/use.

The petitioner passed an order dismissing the respondent from service. The Labour Court held that the termination was illegal and directed the reinstatement of the respondent to his original post with 20 per cent back wages and with all consequential benefits.

Thereafter, the petitioner filed the instant petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging the decision of the Labour Court. Then, an appeal was made before the High Court.

High Court Held

The High Court held that the respondent had no legal right to continue in the corporation after being found guilty of theft. Further, there was nothing wrong with the petitioner’s dairy losing confidence and faith in such an employee and awarding punishment of removal. The instant Court was of the opinion that it would neither be proper nor fair on the part of the Court to substitute the findings and punishment of a departmental proceeding by allowing reinstatement.

Thus, the award passed by the Labour Court directing the reinstatement of the respondent employee with 20% back wages was to be set aside, and the termination order was to be upheld.

List of Cases Reviewed

• Panchmahal Steel Limited v. Ranjitsinh Udaysinh Parmar [R/Special Civil Application No. 20879 of 2018, dated 28-12-2018] (Para 7.13) Distinguished

List of Cases Referred to

• Lupin Limited v. Melsingh Bhagvansinh Parmar [2022] 4 taxmann.com 2263 (Gujarat) (para 5.5)
• Divisional Controller v. Mohanbhai Lakhabhai Makwana [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 11540 of 2015, dated 13-9-2024] (para 5.5)
• Bharat Heavy Elecricals Ltd. v. M.Chandrashekhar Reddy 2005 taxmann.com 1966 (SC) (para 5.5)
• Panchmahal Steel Limited v. Ranjitsinh Udaysinh Parmar [R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20879 of 2018, dated 28-12-2018] (para 5.6)
• Depot Manager, A.P.S.R.T.C. v. Raghuda Siva Sankar Prasad (2007) 1 SCC 222 (para 7.10)
• U.P. State Road Transport Corporation v. Mohan Lal Gupta 2000 taxmann.com 3424 (SC) (para 7.11)
• CHAIRMAN and M.D.V.S.P. v. Goparaju Sri Prabhakara Hari Babu 2008 taxmann.com 10832 (SC) (para 7.12).