BALIA, J. - (1.) THE matter has come up on application for early hearing on behalf of respondents. THE consent of the parties matter has been heard.
(2.) THE subject matter of this writ petition is an award made by the Labour Court, Jodhpur dt. 15. 1. 1999 (Annex. 6) read with the earlier order dt. 17. 12. 90 (Annex. 4 ). Mohanlal respondent No. 1 since deceased, was charged with misconduct of beating a fellow worker and abusing him while he was returning home after attending the Court hearing at Jalore on 21st Feb. 1983. After holding a departmental enquiry into the charges the said workman was dismissed from services by order dt. 24. 06. 1983 and remuneration for the period of suspension was also forfeited. THE dispute about the said punishment was referred to Labour Court, Jodhpur for adjudication vide notification dt. 23. 07. 1989. By the order dt. 17. 12. 90 the Labour Court found the enquiry to be invalid for two reasons. Firstly that the workman was not given a copy of relevant documents inspite of demanding which has resulted in breach of principles of natural justice and also that the alleged act of misconduct do not fall within the definition of misconduct u/cl. 34 (e) of the Standing Order which reads as under: Clause 34 (e): Quarelling, abusing, teasing threatening beating or assaulting a fellow worker or any body else in the service of the Corporation or passenger, while they are on Corporation's duty or in Corporation's bus or Corporation's premises. In reaching to this conclusion learned Labour Court relied on decision of Supreme Court in M/s. Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court & Others (1 ). The Labour Court also found that since the alleged misconduct did not come within the definition of misconduct, the enquiry was void ab initio and no opportunity of sustaining the order of dismissal is required to be given to the employer in these proceedings. However the matter was adjourned for determining relief to which the workman is entitled and thereafter by the award dt. 15. 1. 91 the workman was directed to be reinstated w. e. f. 24. 06. 1983 with full back wages. Aggrieved with the aforesaid orders the Corporation has filed this petition. During the pendency of this writ petition said Mohan Lal expired on 31. 12. 1994 and his Legal Representatives have been brought on record. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that Labour Court has seriously erred in holding that any act of violence and abusing co-worker outside the campus or establishment did not come within the definition of misconduct under the Standing Order 34 (e) by ignoring sub-clause (f) of Clause 34 of the Standing Order and therefore the award is void ab initio. Learned counsel contended that even if Labour Court found that enquiry to be invalid and opportunity ought to have been given to the employer to establish that dismissal was valid and justified. Learned counsel for the LRs workman supported the award with reasoning stated therein.
(3.) HAVING carefully considered I find some force in the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner. Standing Order detailing the acts and omissions which are treated to be a misconduct does not end with sub-clause (e) nor is the only misconduct described. Sub-clauses (e) and (f) are relevant for the present purposes. Sub-clause (e) of Clause 34 reads as under: 34 (e): Quarelling, abusing, teasing threatening, beating or assaulting a fellow worker or any body else in the service of the Corporation or passenger, while they are on Corporation's duty or in Corporation's bus or Corporation's premises. Sub-clause (f) of Clause 34 reads as under: 34 (f): Indecent, disorderly or rude behaviour with any fellow worker or officer or subordinate or business man or customers and other persons connected with Corporation's transport business. Standing Orders, for the purpose finding whether any alleged acts and omissions amounts to misconduct, are to be read as a whole and not in a piecemeal manner in isolation. Undoubtedly the ambit and scope of misconduct for which disciplinary proceedings can be taken against workman or an employee depends on the definition of misconduct given in Conduct Rules. The Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, & Ors. (supra) was construing sub-clauses 10, 16 and 30 of Standing Order 20 of the Standing Orders governing the said establishment. ;