1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.4944 OF 2001 M.B. Kamble since deceased by his legal heirs 1A. Savitribai Mahadeo Kamble and others ..Petitioners. Vs. Atlas Copco India Ltd. ..Respondent. .... Mr. A.S. Rao for the Petitioners. Mr. Vishal Talsania i/b M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Respondent. ... CORAM: DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J. 1st October, 2008. P.C. : 1. On 24th April, 2002, a Learned Single Judge of this Court Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.M. Khanwilkar held that insofar as the merits of the main Petition are concerned, there was no reason to take a different view than the one taken by the Labour Court in paragraphs 12 and 13 of the judgment under challenge. The original Petitioner was a watchman who was dismissed from service on a charge of theft which was established after a disciplinary enquiry. The allegation against the original Petitioner was that when the dickey of the motorcycle was opened, certain 2 property belonging to the employer was recovered. The Labour Court also observed that during the search the dickey was opened with the key given by the watchman himself. The Learned Single Judge issued notice only confined to the question of proportionality of the punishment. An Appeal was carried against the order of the Learned Single Judge. By an order dated 22nd September, 2004 the Division Bench declined to entertain the appeal at that stage since the Petition was still pending but observed that it would be open to the Petitioner to raise all contentions as and when the appeal which is filed against the final order in these proceedings is taken up. At this stage, consequently the only question which falls for consideration is as regards the proportionality of the punishment. The charge which has been established against the original Petitioner is a serious charge involving theft of the property belonging to the employer. In such a case it is not the quantum of the theft that would determine the punishment of dismissal. The employer is entitled to take a strict view of the theft of its property. The charge which has been established is serious enough to justify the dismissal. The Labour Court was, therefore not in error. 2. Learned counsel further submitted that since the original 3 Petitioner has since expired, at least the terminal dues should be paid. Learned counsel has submitted that the record of the original Petitioner was unblemished. It is well settled that even if the service record is otherwise free from blame, the imposition of the penalty of dismissal can be justified if the charge of misconduct which is proved is of a serious nature. Counsel appearing for the Respondent management has stated before the Court that the terminal dues payable to the original Petitioner shall be paid over to his heirs if not already paid, expeditiously. The Petition is accordingly disposed of. *****