The Court held that the dismissal of an employee for theft of company's property is justified, and that the Tribunal is not required to consider the employee's past record and the gravity of the misconduct if the punishment imposed is not harsh or excessive.

1. THIS appeal from original order is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd February 1982 passed in civil Order No. 1238 (W) of 1982 by G. N. Ray, J. By the said determinations, the learned Judge has upheld the decision of the Seventh industrial Tribunal, in a reference made under section 10 to the effect as to whether the dismissal of Shri Sudev Ghosh was justified and to what relief, if any, was he entitled, made under section 10 of the industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act.

2. THE Respondent M/s. Wimco Limited is admittedly a company registered under the Indian Companies Act, 1956 and the same has been stated to be a flourishing one, having monopoly in the manufacture of matches. It has further been stated" that the conditions of service and terms of employment of the workmen of the Respondent Company's factory, were and are governed by a set of Standing Orders certified under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946, apart from various settlements, arrived at bipartite and tripartite level, between the Respondent Company and their workmen represented by the petitioner Union. The employee concerned viz. Shri Sudeb Ghosh was also claimed to be a member of the petitioner Union and it has been stated that he was comployed as a Fitter in the W. S. P. Department in the factory of the Respondent Company, since 1950. It has also been alleged that the employee concerned was not only a very old one but also was faithful and sincere to the Respondent Company and he had spotless record for about 26 years. On 7th November 1976, when according to him a concocted incident and a purported' charge sheet, purportedly under clauses 52 (d) and 52 (p) of the Standing Orders was issued under the signature of the Regional Manager of the Respondent Company.

The charge-sheet, which is in Annexure -A to the writ petition and was dated 7th November 1976, was issued on the allegations as indicated below :-

(1) that on Friday, the 5th November 1976 at about 3-20 p. m. while you were waiting the workers' Search Gate to go outside the factory after the end of your duty, you movement was found very suspicious, you were immediately challenged by Sri Ramjanam Singh and enquired about your name. In reply you impersonified yourself as Monoranjan Das and suddenly started retreating from the Search gate hurriedly towards the factory. (2) Sri IRamjanarn Singh immediately chased you accompanied with Watchman Sri Surendra Nath Jana, Brass no. 37 and Sri Mali Tham Bhadur, Brass No. 13 when you throw a brass spare machine parts' from your possession under the notice board in front of General Office. Sri Ramjanam Singh immediately picket up the said Brass spare machine parts and [reported the incident to Sri s. Chatterjee, Dy. Plant Service Manager and (3) On suspicion you were also asked to open your drawer thereafter which you opened yourself in presence of Sri P. K. Chanda, Foreman of W. S. P. Deptt., sri P. R. Mukherjee, Astt. Manager BH Deptt., Sri Ramjanam Singh asstt. Security Supervisor and Sri Mall Tham Bahadur, Watchmen where one Stainless steel sheet, size 2' x 1', which is company's property were found kept concealed inside your said drawer. On being asked by Sri" Chatterjee as to' why you kept the said stainless steel sheet in your drawer you could not give any satisfactory explanation. It is therefore obvious that you kept this stainless steel sheet concealed in your drawer and took this spare machine parts with you referred to above on 5. 11. 76 with ulterior motive to remove the sarnie from the factory for personal gain and the sarnie was said to be issued on the basis of a report by the Assistant Security' Supervisor Shri Ramjanam Singh. It has also been alleged 'in the said charge-sheet, that the acts as mentioned and Were claimed to have been committed by the employee concerned, amounted to misconduct under the clauses of the Standing Orders as mentioned above. In fact, clause 52 (d