Concurrent factual findings sustaining dismissal for possessing medical equipment warrant no further interference.

The appellant, F. Joseph, was employed for approximately 15 years as a Helper in Sankara Nethralaya, a non-profit medical organisation, where he assisted doctors in the operation theatre.

During the course of his employment, he was found in possession of medical equipment, including a glass van syringe and injection needles, while leaving the hospital premises.

Disciplinary proceedings were initiated, and although the appellant denied the charges and claimed that the equipment had been taken for use in the operation theatre, the enquiry officer found the charges proved.

The Management consequently terminated his employment.

The appellant raised an industrial dispute in I.D.No.55 of 2000. The First Additional Labour Court, Chennai, upheld the termination but awarded compensation of ₹3 lakhs in lieu of reinstatement, taking into account his 15 years of service.

The Management challenged the award in W.P.No.24330 of 2014, and the Writ Court set aside the Labour Court’s award. The appellant thereafter preferred the present intra-court appeal.

Whether the findings that the appellant committed misconduct by possessing medical equipment while leaving the hospital premises warranted interference in writ appeal?

Whether the Labour Court’s award of ₹3 lakhs as compensation in lieu of reinstatement could be sustained despite the finding that the disciplinary charges were proved?

Whether the disciplinary proceedings were vitiated by any failure to comply with the principles of natural justice?

Where a domestic enquiry is conducted after affording the employee a reasonable opportunity to defend himself, and the factual findings of misconduct are supported by the enquiry record, the Labour Court’s and Writ Court’s concurrent factual findings ordinarily should not be disturbed in an intra-court appeal.

Possession of hospital medical equipment by an employee while leaving the hospital premises may constitute serious misconduct when the charge is established in a duly conducted disciplinary enquiry.

No specific statutory provision or judicial precedent was cited in the judgment.

The Court noted that the appellant was admittedly found in possession of medical equipment while leaving the hospital premises and that he had been given an opportunity to defend himself in the disciplinary enquiry.

His explanation—that the equipment was taken for use in the operation theatre—was considered, but the enquiry officer nevertheless found the charges proved.

The Labour Court and the Writ Court both accepted the finding of misconduct, and the Division Bench found no basis to reappreciate or interfere with those concurrent factual conclusions.

The Management’s contention that principles of natural justice had been complied with was therefore accepted, while the appellant’s argument that mere possession could not amount to theft or misconduct was rejected in light of the proved facts and the findings recorded in the enquiry.

The writ appeal was dismissed, the Writ Court’s order dated 05.06.2023 in W.P.No.24330 of 2014 was upheld, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.

No order as to costs was made.