ORDER
R. Jayasimha Babu, J.
1. The employer charge-sheeted the respondent workman who was a watchman charging him with complicity in theft of the materials belonging to the employer, namely, two typewriters and dynamo lamp sets, which had been stolen from the factory on July 7, 1986, and February 23, 1987, respectively. The charge-sheet was issued on June 16, 1988. It was stated in the charge-sheet that the delay in framing the charge was due to police investigation which had revealed the workman’s involvement only at the time of issue of the charge.
2. At the enquiry the employer produced and relied upon a letter which it had received from the Superintendent of Police, Chengalpet (East) District, dated June 13, 1988, wherein it was stated that the investigation made by the police had revealed that the workman, Narayana Singh, along with another watchman Havildar Neem Bahadur in association with a well-known receiver of stolen goods by name Chockalingam were responsible for the theft of the typewriters and that their unlawful activities were abetted by one Joseph. Along with that letter was sent the statement said to be the confession statement of Joseph wherein he had stated that Narayana Singh along with his brother-in-law Ravi, Chockalingam and another watchman Neem Bahadur were parties to the theft of tyres. The police officer who wrote the letter was not examined at the enquiry. The chief of security of the petitioner who was himself a retired police officer was examined who stated in the course of his deposition that he had himself conducted an enquiry but that the result of the enquiry had not been placed before the management.
3. After the enquiry in which the workman participated, the employer held that the charges were proved and terminated the services of the second respondent watchman as also of Neem Bahadur on May 11, 1989. The watchman had worked for seven years prior to the date of his removal.
4. Counsel for the employer submitted that even if the allegations against the workman may not be regarded as having been proved on account of the non-examination of the Superintendent of Police on whose letter they had acted, nevertheless, considering the position occupied by the workman, namely, that of a watchman, it was a position of trust and confidence and that the employer had materials on the basis of which it had formed a bona fide view that the continuance of the workman in the employment of the petitioner as a watchman was highly prejudicial to the interest of the employer. It could not possibly repose trust in a person whose integrity was in grave doubt, to protect its property especially when the police had found that he was an accomplice of a well-known receiver of stolen goods and that the equipment from the factory had found its way to that receiver of stolen goods. Counsel submitted that the appropriate relief to be given to the workman could only be by way of compensation and not reinstatement.
5. Counsel relied on the decision of the Supreme Court in Chembur Co-operative Industrial Estate Ltd. v. M.K. Chhatre , wherein a three-judge Bench of the Apex Court after finding that the charge against the employee had not been proved, nevertheless upheld the employer’s plea that the employer had lost confidence in the employee and awarded compensation in a sum which was accepted by the workman through his counsel.
6. Counsel also relied on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Francis Klein and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. Their Workmen in which the Apex Court held that where an employer loses confidence in his employee particularly in respect of a person who is discharging the office of trust and confidence, there can be no justification for directing reinstatement. The workman involved in that case was a Durwan who was required to guard the valuable property both manufactured goods and assets of the employer and who had failed to help his colleague who had sought his help in apprehending a thief. In that case which was decided in the year 1971, the payment of a sum of Rs. 5,000 as compensation was considered to be a just recompense for the dismissed employee.
7. Learned counsel for the respondent workman on the other hand submitted that the employer having chosen to dismiss the workman after holding an enquiry, the employer must accept the consequence of the holding of the Labour Court that the evidence did not warrant the finding of guilt and therefore, the relief of reinstatement was necessarily to be given to the employee. Counsel in this context invited attention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of L. Michael v. Johnson Pumps India Ltd. , which was a case of discharge simpliciter which on scrutiny was found to be not a bona fide order. The Court, therefore, rejected the employer’s claim that loss of employer’s confidence was sufficient justification for termination. The Court held in that judgment that the belief of suspicion of the employer in his employee should not be mere whim or fancy, but should be bona fide and reasonable and that the power should be exercised objectively and in good faith which “means wisely and with due care and prudence”. The Court in that case found that the loss of confidence was merely the ipsi dixit of the employer and not supported by any evidence.
8. Counsel also referred to the decision of this Court in the case of T.I. Miller v. Addl. Labour Court 1989 (2) LLN 325 wherein this Court on the facts of that case held that the plea of the employer that the employee would get upset emotionally and cause scenes if compelled to be retained was held to be a wholly insufficient justification for not directing reinstatement.
9. In this case what is material is the position held by the workman, whether it was a position of trust and confidence and whether the employer acted bona fide honestly and objectively and had some basis of doing so. The fact that the employee workman is a watchman by itself would show that he is occupying a position of trust and confidence. The suspicion regarding the employee’s conduct and integrity cannot be said to be merely whimsical or fanciful as the employer had before it the report from a responsible police officer of the rank of Superintendent of Police wherein he had stated the result of the enquiry which showed the association of the workman with a receiver of stolen goods and his complicity in committing theft of the property from the factory of the employer.
10. The fact that evidence was not forthcoming to show that the guilt of the workman was beyond reasonable doubt, is not of material relevance while considering the bona fides and reasonableness on the part of the employer in losing confidence in the employee. The genuineness of the letter which was received by the employer from the Superintendent of Police was never in doubt, no allegation of mala fides was ever made against the police officers and there was no material at all on the basis of which the Labour Court could come to a conclusion that the action of the employer in stating that it had lost confidence was mala fide or bereft of any reason.
11. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, the Labour Court was clearly in error in directing reinstatement. It has riot at all applied its mind seriously to this aspect. It has merely proceeded on the basis that once a charge is not found to be established, reinstatement must necessarily follow.
12. The impugned award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement with back wages is therefore set aside. The employee shall however be entitled to compensation for loss of employment.
13. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that during the pendency of the proceedings in this Court, the employer had deposited a sum of Rs. 1 lakh and that amount could be paid over to the workman. It was also brought to the notice of the Court that in respect of another watchman, who was also similarly charged and whose services were terminated, Havildar Neem Bahadur, his termination had also been set side by the Labour Court and that after it was challenged before this Court, that watchman had accepted the compensation in the sum of Rs. 1 lakh. Counsel also submitted that during the pendency of this proceeding, the petitioner has been paying the last drawn wages to employee for the last seven years. The interest on the sum of Rs. 1 lakh kept in deposit is also being drawn by the workman.
14. Having regard to the amounts already drawn by the employee- workman and having regard to what had been paid over to the other employee, and taking note of the erosion in the value of the rupee in the recent past, the employer is directed to pay to the workman concerned a sum of Rs. 1,25,000 (rupees one lakh twenty- five thousand only). The sum of Rs. 1 lakh already deposited shall be allowed to be withdrawn by the workman. The employer shall in addition pay a sum of Rs. 25.000. Counsel for the employer says that the employer will hand over that amount directly to the workman within a week’s time.
15. This writ petition is allowed on the above terms. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.