OBEROY FLIGHT SERVICES Vs. SUDESH YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE respondent before this Court was engaged in preparation and packaging of food for the various airlines, for being served to the flyers. One of the airlines for which packed food used to be prepared by the appellant was British Airways. The preparation and packaging of the food was undertaken in a bonded warehouse at the Airport. The case of the appellant is that on 19th July, 2000, when the respondent was leaving the premises after completing her duty, her hand bag was checked by a security guard. On checking the bag, some chocolates were found hidden in the umbrella which had been kept in a plastic bag. The chocolate found in the bag were meant for British Airways. The charges served upon the respondent having been denied by her, an inquiry into those charges was instituted by the appellant. The Inquiry Officer held the charges to be proved. The report of the Inquiry Officer was accepted by the Disciplinary Authority which imposed punishment of dismissal from her services upon the respondent. An industrial dispute having been raised by the respondent, a reference was made to the Labour Court to examine the dismissal of the respondent from service. The Labour Court, vide award dated 18th July, 2006, held that the charges against the respondent had been proved. The Labour Court, however, was of the view that to dismiss an employee for having committed theft of this nature was shockingly disproportionate and was not justified. He accordingly directed the appellant to impose another punishment short of dismissal of service, proportionate to the misconduct committed by the respondent, which may not necessarily mean taking her bag on duty. In compliance of the aforesaid order, the appellant vide order dated 5th March, 2007 imposed penalty of discharge with notice upon the respondent and paid her one month salary as notice pay. The revised penalty, however, was not challenged by the respondent. Aggrieved from the award of the Labour Court, the respondent filed W.P.(C) 4433/2007, the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 5th March, 2012 set aside the award and directed reinstatement of the respondent with 40% back -wages. Being aggrieved from the said order dated 5th March, 2012, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.

(2.) IN Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477. Supreme Court identified the limitations of certiorari jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in the following terms: -

(3.) IN view of the emphatic deposition of Shri Vinay Kumar Sharma, it cannot be said that there was no evidence against the respondent or that the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority was perverse in the sense that no Seasonable person, considering the evidence produced during the inquiry could have held the respondent guilty of the charge against her. The learned Counsel for he respondent contended that there was no FIR or complaint alleging theft of chocolates of British Airways and since the respondent was posted in the Packing Department whereas the eatables such as chocolates are stored in another department, she could not have committed theft of the chocolates. The chocolates recovered from the possession of the respondent were not the chocolates available in the market, they being meant only for British Airways which was to serve them D the passengers flying on its aircrafts. Also, this is not the case of the respondent hat though the chocolates were found in her bag, those were not chocolates meant br British Airways, but were otherwise purchased by her or were gifted to her. The case of the respondent is that no chocolate at all were recovered from her bag. in fact, as per the deposition of the security guard, the respondent was aware of chocolates being kept in her bag and felt that she would be insulted, if the bag was opened in the presence of others. In these circumstances, no fault can be found with the findings that the chocolates meant for British Airways were recovered from the possession of the respondent. This is not the case of the respondent that home employee of British Airways or some passenger travelling on British Airways and gifted the aforesaid chocolates to her. In fact, she gave no explanation as to' from where these chocolates were received by her. It can therefore hardly be disputed that either the respondent committed theft of these chocolates or she received and retained them despite knowing fully well that the chocolates being meant for British Airways were stolen property having been stolen by the person who had provided those chocolates to her. In these circumstances, the learned Tribunal rightly found no ground to interfere with the findings recorded by the Disciplinary Authority.