Desai, J. - (1.) Appellant, a multi-national company, has set up a factory at Aligarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1958. Appellant had declared a lockout with effect from 12 noon on May 6, 1977. It was notified that as negotiations for settlement of pending disputes between the appellant and the workmen employed by it were afoot, the lockout was to be lifted and was actually lifted from 8.00 a. m. on May 13, 1977. It is alleged that on the. very day during the second shift, some of the workmen again resorted to an illegal strike, gathered together near the gate of the factory and intimidated and obstructed other workmen desiring to report for duty. Appellant approached the Civil Court and obtained an ex parte injunction restraining the workmen from indulging into unfair and illegal activities. On May 27, 1977 around 5.35 p. m., some of the workmen who had not joined the strike and who have been referred to in the discussion as 'loyal workmen' boarded Bus No. UPB- 6209 chartered by the appellant-company exclusively for the use of the 'loyal workmen' commuting between the city and the factory. It is alleged that some of the striking workmen including the second respondent boarded the bus and during the journey in the bus at different places manhandled the 'loyal workmen'. According to the appellant-company, this action of the second respondent and his striking colleagues 9 in number whose names have been set out in the charge-sheet constitutes misconduct specified in clauses 10, 16 and 30 of Standing Order 22 applicable to the workmen employed by the appellant-company. Accordingly, a charge-sheet dated June 6, 1977 was served upon the second respondent who in turn approached the Labour Court under S. 11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inviting the Labour Court to hold that on a correct interpretation of the relevant Standing Order, the alleged acts of misconduct would not be covered by clauses 10, 16 and 30 of S. O. 22.
(2.) The Labour Court framed as many as 8 issues out of which Issue Nos. 4, 5 and 8 engaged the attention of the parties. They read as under: "4. Can the opposite party take disciplinary action against the applicant for acts of misconduct, said to have been committed at the places, referred to in the charge-sheet issued to him 5. Whether the point, where the bus in question is said to have started is part of the premises of the opposite party or is situated in the vicinity of the aforesaid premises 6. Is the place, where the bus is said to have started, situated on the public road - All these three issues were considered together by the Labour Court. The Labour Court held that upon a true construction of clauses 10, 16 and 30 of Standing Order 22, the appellant-company is not entitled to charge-sheet the second respondent and his co-workers for alleged acts of misconduct said to have been committed by them outside the premises of the establishment and not in the vicinity thereof. It further held that it was open to the appellant-company to hold an enquiry into the alleged act of misconduct of the second respondent and his co-workers in respect of charges 2 (a) and 2 (b) of the charge-sheet drawn up by the appellant. There are other findings of the Labour Court with which we are not concerned in this appeal.
(3.) The appellant moved the, Allahabad High Court under Arts. 226 and 227 of the Constitution in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 5437 of 1979. A Division Bench of the High Court held that the construction put by the Labour Court on the relevant clauses of the Standing Order is a reasonable one and accordingly dismissed the writ petition. Hence this appeal by special leave.;