Bombay High Court

WALCHANDNAGAR INDUSTRIES LTD.versusH.R.KAMBLE and ORS.

Decided: 17 July 2026
Disposal: Allowed
Bench: SANDEEP V MARNE

Holding

Proof of theft results in loss of trust and precludes reinstatement, so the Labour and Industrial Court orders directing reinstatement are set aside.

Summary

The petitioner, Walchandnagar Industries Ltd., challenged the Labour Court and Industrial Court orders that reinstated a workman (Respondent No.1) after finding him guilty of theft. The lower courts had justified reinstatement by considering the low monetary value of the stolen item (Rs. 40‑100). The High Court held that once theft is proved, the employer’s trust is irrevocably lost and the value of the stolen property is irrelevant, rendering the reinstatement orders erroneous. Consequently, the Court set aside both the Labour Court judgment of 5 October 2002 and the Industrial Court order of 9 April 2003, and dismissed the original complaint. The writ petition was allowed, and no costs were awarded.

Issues considered

Whether a finding of theft by an employee warrants dismissal without reinstatement irrespective of the value of the stolen item.
Whether the Labour Court and Industrial Court erred in directing reinstatement of the employee despite proof of theft.
Whether the orders of the Labour Court and Industrial Court should be set aside.

Subjects

labour law
industrial court
theft
termination of employment
reinstatement
loss of trust
employment dispute

Judgment

Vaishnavi                                               30-WP-5062-2003


             IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
                     CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                     WRIT PETITION NO. 5062 OF 2003

Walchandnagar Industries Ltd.                          ...Petitioner

                   V/s.

H.R. Kamble and Ors.                                  ...Respondents
                              ________________
Ms. Anjali Purav, for Petitioner.
Mr. R.V. Dighe i/b A.S. Rao, for Respondent No.1.
                              ________________


                                            CORAM: SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.

                                            DATED: 17 July 2026


P.C.:


1)          Petition challenges judgment and order dated 9 April 2003
passed by Member, Industrial Court, Pune, dismissing Revision
Application (ULP) No. 125 of 2002 preferred by the Petitioner and
con>rming the judgment and order dated 5 October, 2002 passed by the
Labour court in Complaint (ULP) No. 168 of 2001. It appears that cross
Revision >led by the Respondent-workman is also dismissed by the
Industrial Court by order dated 5 October 2002. The Labour Court had set
aside the termination and directed reinstatement of the Respondent No.
1.




                                    Page No.1 of 3
                                     17 July 2026
Vaishnavi                                             30-WP-5062-2003


2)          I have heard Ms. Purav, the learned counsel appearing for
Petitioner and Mr. Dighe, the learned counsel appearing for Respondent
No.1 and have considered the submissions canvassed by them.


3)          Perusal of the impugned orders passed by the Labour and
Industrial Courts would indicate that the misconduct of theft is proved
against Respondent No. 1. Though the serious misconduct of theft was
proved against him, the Labour and Industrial Courts have thought it
appropriate to grant reinstatement only by taking into consideration the
value of stolen item. According to the Labour Court, the stolen item was
rusted and had value of Rs. 40 to 50. On the other hand, the Industrial
Court held that the value of the stolen item was Rs. 50 to 100. In my
view, once charge of theft is proved, the same results into loss of faith
and trust for the employer. Value of stolen item is irrelevant. The Labour
and industrial Courts have grossly erred in directing reinstatement of
Respondent No. 1. While admitting the Petition, this Court has stayed
implementation of the order passed by the Labour Court. The Petition is
pending for the last 23 long years, when Respondent No.1 is not
reinstated.


4)          Considering the above position, in my view, the impugned orders
passed by the Labour and Industrial Courts deserve to be set aside. The
Petition accordingly succeeds and I proceed to pass the following order:


            i)    judgment and order dated 5 October 2002 passed by the
            Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 168 of 2001, as well as




                                   Page No.2 of 3
                                    17 July 2026
Vaishnavi                                                 30-WP-5062-2003


            judgment and order dated 9 April 2003 passed by the Industrial
            Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 125 of 2002 are set aside.


            ii)   Complaint ULP No. 168 of 2001 is dismissed.


5)          Writ Petition is allowed in above terms. Rule is made absolute.
There shall be no order as to costs.




                                                     [SANDEEP V. MARNE, J.]




                                    Page No.3 of 3
                                     17 July 2026

Continue reading with your account

Checking your session…