A.N.Varma - (1.) THIS petition is directed against an Industrial award made by the Labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication case no. 40 of 1975 upholding the dismissal of a workman represented by the petitioner Unions. The concerned workman, Dinanath Murya was employed at the relevant time as an electrician in M/s. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. the third respondent to this petition on the charge of disobedience. The said workman was dismissed upon the conclusion of a domestic enquiry which was ordered to go into the charge framed against the workman.
(2.) AGGRIEVED by that action of the management, the petitioner union spoused the case of the workman and eventually succeeded in getting the dispute referred under section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act for adjudication of the Labour Court Allahabad. In the written statement filed on behalf of the workman, it was pleaded by the petitioner that the workman had not been asked to repair the machine or to carry out the work entrusted to him by the Foreman or any other superior officer. It is also pleaded that the enquiry conducted by the management was wholly invalid and are against the principles of natural justice. Finally, it was asserted that the dismissal was illegal and unjustified and that the concerned workman was entitled to be reinstated. The management contested the claim of the petitioner and asserted in its statement that the workman was at the relevant time employed as an electrician in Grade I on 17-9-1976. While he was on duty, he was given certain instructions by his Foreman but the workman refused to carry out the job. Subsequently he was asked by the Assistant Superintendent to do the said job comprising repair of the breaker of the mixer no. 1. The Assistant Superintendent tried to convince him that it was his job and he has been doing it in the past also but in spite of this, the workman persisted and declined to carry out the job. Accordingly, he was charge sheeted on grounds of misconduct on 17-9-1974. The explanation submitted by the workman was not satisfactory whereupon a domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charge of wilful disobedience was fully substantiated. The report was followed by dismissal of the workman by an order dated 4-10-1974. It was asserted by the management that in the facts and circumstances, the dismissal was wholly justified. In support of his case, the management filed before the Labour Court the entire evidence pertaining to the enquiry conducted against the workman on a consideration of the material brought on record, the Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper and the same does not suffer from any illegality. In regard to plea raised before the Labour Court on behalf of the petitioner as to the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court has observed that the workman is clearly guilty of misconduct as defined in sub-clause (y) of clause 21 of the applicable standing orders. This clause reads thus ; "The following acts or omissions will be treated as misconduct : (a)............ (b)............ (c)............ (y) wilful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others of any lawful and reasonable order of superior."
(3.) THE Labour Court held that considering the evidence on the record the quantum of punishment given to the workman was fully justified. Aggrieved by this award, the petitioners have approached this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions only to two points : One, that the act or omission for which the workman has been dismissed is covered by sub-clause (b) of clause 23 of Standing Orders for which the punishment which the management could award would be a censure or warning notice.;