SINGHAL, J. - (1.) THIS writ petition has been filed against the award dated 21. 1. 1990 by which the learned Judge, Labour Court came to the conclusion that there is violation of the provisions of Standing Order 24 Ka and Chha. The Industrial dispute was raised as to whether the order of dismissal of the petitioner was proper or not u/s 10 of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. The petitioner was the employee of the respondent and the allegation against him is that a quarter was allotted to him on 27. 6. 1979 and in the said letter it was written by the petitioner that the quarter would be vacated on 12. 7. 1979. Thereafter the petitioner was served with a notice and disciplinary action was taken against him on the ground that the quarter which was given for 15 days has not been vacated. The only charge in the charge sheet was of misconduct on the alleged ground that the quarter was not vacated. In the charge sheet it was mentioned that the petitioner is continuing the possession of the quarter unauthorisedly and the charge sheet was given on 8. 2. 1982 in which the petitioner was found quilty and was suspended for four days/. Then petitioner was asked by the management to vacate it by 5. 3. 1982 but still the quarter was not vacated. The petitioner was also given the opportunity to submit the reply by 1. 3. 1982 and since the reply was not received it was considered that the petitioner has nothing to say. The order of termination was issued on 11. 5. 1982. Against the said order the industrial disputed as stated above was raised. The lear- ned Judge came to the conclusion that not vacating the quarter after the expiry of the time, amounts to trespass and when inspite of giving opportunity the petitioner failed to vacate it it amounted to misconduct. The explanation which was given before the Labour Court was that the petitioner could not get the other quarter and even if the quarter was not vacated, the management could have taken other pro- ceedings. The learned Judge, Labour Court came to the conclusion that in the statement of claim of the workman it has no where been stated that he could not vacate the quarter on account of non availability of the other quarter. With regard to other points that other proceedings for vacating the quarter could have been taken, as considered not to reduce the gravity of misconduct and in these circum- stances, the order which was passed by the management was considered proper.
(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the alleged misconduct is not covered by the standing order. Clause 24 (KA) and (Chha) are as under : *** Reliance has been placed on the decision of Chhotalal Vithaldas Kotecha vs. Halar Salt and Chemical Works (1), where it was considered by the Gujarat High Court that on account of uttering abuses, extreme penalty of economic death in form of dismissal is not proper. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Kerala High Court in the case of P. P. Gopalan vs. the D. I. G. and another (2),where the requirement of rule enabling delinquent officer to have proper representation was not complied with. The order of the dismissal on the finding of such enquiry was held not sustainable. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Gujarat High Court in the case of R. L. Parmar vs. Gujarat Electricity Board Baroda (3), where the penalty was reduced even then ultimately it was found that the workman was guilty in the departmental proceeding. It was found that the Labour Court is entitled to invoke the provisions of Sec. 11-A for reduction in the penalty. The decision of Apex Court in the case of Central Inland Water Transport Corporation Ltd. and another vs. Brajo Nath Ganguly and Another (4), has been relied to point out that the termination of service of permanent employee without giving reason and without giving notice is ultravirus Art. 14 of the Constitution and directive principles as contained under Art. 39 (a) and 41 of the Constitution of India. The decision of H/s Glaxo Laboratories (P) Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer, Lab- our Court Meerut and Others (5), where it was observed that the misconduct must have casual connection with place of work and with duty hours. The provision in the Standing Orders enumerating or defining acts of misconduct should be strictly construed. Reliance has also been placed on the decision of Jaswant Sugar Mills Ltd. , Meerut vs. Shri Badri Prasad and Others (6), where a distinction was brought between the temporary and permanent workman.
(3.) THE main argument of the learned counsel for the petitioner is based that the alleged misconduct is not covered by the standing order and that punishment is not commensurate with the act of the petitioner. THE petitioner was also not given the fair opportunity. Learned counsel for the respondents has relied the decision of Apex Court in the case of Mahendra Singh Dhantwal vs. Hindustan Motors. Ltd. and Others (7), wherein it was observed that the finding of fact cannot be interfered within a writ petition unless the conclusion is perverse or based on no evidence whatsoever. In this case the matter with regard to misconduct was also considered and it was observed that the alleged misconduct, must need not be the one enumerated in the standing orders of the company. The standing order of the company only describes certain cases of misconduct and the same cannot be exhaustive of all the species of misconduct which a workman may commit. I have considered over the matter. In the present case the matter of the petitioner was taken by the management u/s 33 (2) (b) of the I. D. Act and the direc- tion was upheld. It was thereafter the industrial dispute was raised u/s10. Learned counsel for the respondents has also pointed out that the name of this company was changed from Gopal Mills to Sudarshan Textile Mills and it is of Maharaja Ummed Mills Kota. The unit has completely been closed as is evident from the judgment of this Court in Gopal Mills vs. State (8), in which the permission for closure was upheld by this court. ;