Alagiriswami, J. - (1.) The 1st respondent was a mechanic in the appellant company. On 23rd September, 1965 a charge-sheet was served on him on the ground that he sold one second hand Godrej Standard typewriter to M/s. Jabalpur Enterprises. The charge-sheet mentioned that he had transacted the business in the name of his brother, that the machine actually belonged to him and that he had carried on negotiations and concluded the transaction with the party mentioned. He was, therefore, charged for grave and serious misconduct for engaging himself in work similar in nature to that of the company under clause 12-A (29) of the Company's Standing Orders. The 1st respondent denied the charge levelled against him and claimed that his brother had sold the typewriter and he had nothing to do with it and that the sale of one second hand typewriter by his brother did not and cannot amount to carrying on business of selling typewriters, that even on the allegations there was no basis for charging him with misconduct under clause 12-A (29) of the Standing Orders. Thereafter an enquiry was held and witnesses examined. Almost towards the end of the enquiry he was asked whether he would like to say anything and the 1st respondent requested to be allowed to admit his guilt and also requested the management to take a lenient view of his lapse and reinstate him and allow him to serve the company with all loyalty and sincerity. The enquiry officer held that the charge against the 1st respondent was made out and the regional manager of the appellant company thereafter dismissed him.
(2.) A reference was made by the Madhya Pradesh Government to the Labour Court at Jabalpur. The Labour Court held that as the statement of the workman was recorded and he was asked to explain the charges levelled against him before all the prosecution evidence had been completed, it was a serious infirmity and to that extent the domestic enquiry was vitiated. But on the basis of the evidence of witnessess produced by the employer the Labour Court held that the charge against the workman was proved. The Labour Court in particular stressed the fact that the 1st respondent not only sold the typewriter but else undertook to do service of the typewriter for one year, and it held that by selling a typewriter and undertaking to do service of that typewriter for one year the 1st respondent could be said to have engaged in work which was similar in nature to that of the company.
(3.) The 1st respondent filed a petition before the High Court for quashing the award of the Labour Court. The High Court held that "engaging in any business." meant a continuity of transactions and not a single casual or solitary transaction and that therefore the 1st respondent by selling one second hand typewriter could not be said to have contravened clause (29) of the Standing Orders or any of the terms of his employment. It was argued before the High Court that as the 1st respondent had undertaken to repair the typewriter for a period of one year he should be held to have engaged in business of repairing typewriters, which was also a business carried on by the company. This argument was rejected on the ground that it was not mentioned in the charge-sheet. In the result the award of the Labour Court was quashed.;