A.P.SEN, J. - (1.) THIS is a petition by Shantilal Oswal under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of an award of the Labour Court dated 2nd May, 1975.
(2.) A Departmental Enquiry under Regulation 26 of the Khadi and Village Industries Commission Employees (Conduct, Discipline and Appeal) Regulations, 1961 was held against the petitioner who is an officiating Stenon -grapher Gr. II in the Khadi and Village Industries Commission, Jaipur, into two charges of gross indiscipline insubordination and mis behaviour. The Enquiry Officer in his report dated 18 -6 -1971 held that charge No, 2 viz., assaulting the State Director, i.e., his superior officer had been conclusively proved The Disciplinary Authority i.e., the Dy. Chief Executive Officer agreed with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and served the petitioner with a show cause notice dated 7 9 1971 under Regulation 26(10). The Chief Executive Officer by his order dated 8 -3 -1972 considered the representation submitted by the petitioner, and taking a lenient view of the matter, directed the he be reinstated in service and that his two future increments should be withheld with cumulative effect, as a measure of punishment. On appeal by the petitioner under Regulation 35, the Chairman of the Commission allowed the appeal and reduced the punishment to withholding the increment for one month only with cumulative effect and made a direction in terms of F Rules 64 that the period of suspension shall be treated as a period of non -duty for the purpose of additional pay or allowances, etc., but shall not be treated as a break in service. The Labour Court on a reference of the dispute by the State Government under Section 10 of the Industry Disputes Act, 1947, has found that the procedure prescribed in the Regulations had been complied with by the Disciplinary Authority, in inflicting the punishment of withholding the grade increment of the petitioner for one month with cumulative effect, and that there was sufficient evidence in the Domestic Enquiry to sustain charge No. 2 pertaining to gross mis conduct on the part of the petitioner.
(3.) THE High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution would only interfere with the order of the Labour Court if it is without jurisdiction, or if in the exercise of its jurisdiction 'he Tribunal has committed any manifest error of law. There is no such infirmity attaching to the order of the Labour Court in the instant case.;