Gujarat High Court
Vijaygiri Shantigiri Aparnathi vs Indian Rayon on 30 April, 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 17802 of 2023
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
==========================================================
Approved for Reporting Yes No
Yes
==========================================================
VIJAYGIRI SHANTIGIRI APARNATHI
Versus
INDIAN RAYON
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS NALANDA D ACHARYA(13355) for the Petitioner(s) No. 1
MR.VARUN K.PATEL(3802) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MRS. JUSTICE M. K. THAKKER
Date : 30/04/2025
ORAL JUDGMENT
1. Rule returnable forthwith. Learned advocate Mr.Varun
Patel waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent.
2. The present petition is filed under Article 226 and 227 of
the Constitution of India challenging the award passed
by learned labour court, Junagadh in Reference Case
No.05 of 2022 dated 06.06.2023 whereby, learned
labour court has failed to take into account the language
Page 1 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
of charges framed against the present applicant and
dismissed the reference.
2.1. It is explained in the said written explanation that the
Senior Officer namely Rameshkumar had threatened to
make adverse report against the present petitioner,
thereafter, on 03.09.2021 the appointment of Inquiry
Officer was made and the domestic inquiry commenced
on 11.09.2021 which was adjourned on 25.09.2021. On
12.10.2021 the inquiry was concluded and the petitioner
was held guilty for the charges leveled against him in
view of the admission made by the petitioner with
regard to the charge. Thereafter, on 13.10.2021 the
second show cause notice was issued against the
petitioner, proposing the present petitioner to dismiss
from the service. The request was made by the present
petitioner to re consider the decision in light of the fact
that incident had not taken place within the premises
and during the working hours of the company, therefore,
there is no breach of the model standing orders as
alleged. Alongwith the said request, unconditional
apology was also tendered by the petitioner vide
communication dated 20.10.2021. The FIR being
Page 2 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
No.11186009210592 of 2021 was registered against the
present petitioner for the offence punishable under
sections 323, 504, 506(2) of the Indian Penal Code and
the charge sheet came to be filed which was culminated
into Criminal Case No.2774 of 2021, however, thereafter
the criminal court has acquitted the present petitioner
from the charges on 12.09.2022. Challenging the order
of termination, the dispute was raised before the learned
reference court claiming reinstatement with the relief of
back wages which was registered as Reference (T) No.5
of 2022.
3. It is the case of the present petitioner that the petitioner
was employed with the respondent-Company since
25.11.2014 as a Helper in after treatment department
and has continued in the said department from
01.12.2014 to 20.10.2021 which is dated when the
service of the petitioner came to be terminated. The
show cause notice was issued on 15.05.2018 against the
present petitioner which was replied by the present
petitioner on 16.05.2018 and the same was brought to
an end to on 28.05.2018 with a warning. It is the case of
the petitioner that on 27.08.2021 during early morning,
Page 3 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
petitioner went to purchase milk where his Superior
namely Rameshkumar alongwith other person dashed
their motor cycle on the leg of the petitioner and
therefore, quarrel took place between the petitioner and
Rameshkumar outside the premises of the Company. The
suspension order came to be passed alleging that the
present petitioner had assaulted the superior officer and
thereby, committed breech of 24(h) and rule 25(k) of the
Model Standing Orders. In response to the said
suspension order, written explanation was given by the
present petitioner on 01.09.2021 explaining the
circumstances in which the quarrel took place.
3.1. The present petitioner had produced oral evidence in
the form of chief examination along with documentary
evidence and written statement was filed by the
respondent with the documentary evidence in the nature
of inquiry report. At the end, learned reference court has
rejected the claim of the present petitioner and upheld
the findings of the domestic inquiry which is subject
matter of challenge before this Court.
4. Heard learned advocate Ms.Nalanda Acharya for the
petitioner and learned advocate Mr.Varun.K.Patel for
Page 4 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
the respondent.
5. Learned advocate Ms.Acharya submits that the
petitioner was lured into accepting the charges leveled
against him, under the pretext that if the charges would
be admitted, no major punishment would be imposed.
Under the bonafide impression the charges were
accepted by the present petitioner. It is submitted by the
learned advocate Ms.Acharya that the alleged incident
cannot be termed as a misconduct of the applicant as
the same is not related to his nature of work and would
not even remotely interfere in exercising his duty for the
company. The complainant who had filed the complaint
against the petitioner has previously also made a
complaint where show cause notice was issued which
was subsequently withdrawn based on the explanation
provided by the petitioner. Thereafter, with malafide
intention and with a view to seek vengeance
purposefully the complaint was made with intention to
teach lesson to the petitioner. It is submitted that from
the very inception the complaint as well as the inquiry
was conducted with an oblique motive and with an
intention to oust the applicant from the service.
Page 5 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
5.1. It is submitted by the learned advocate Ms.Acharya
that bare perusal fo the Model Standing Orders reveals
that if the misconduct is done on the premises of the
establishment, then and then only the disciplinary action
could be taken. However, admittedly in the instant case,
the incident had not taken place in the premises and
that incident has nothing to do with the employment of
the petitioner, therefore, also domestic inquiry is
without jurisdiction and initiated with a view to
terminate the petitioner herein. It is submitted by the
learned advocate Ms.Acharya that the domestic inquiry
was closed in haste and never made to understand the
consequences of accepting the charges. The applicant
had defended himself in the reply given to the show
cause notice, however, during the course of inquiry as a
result of false assurance, the charges were accepted on
the pretext that acceptance of the charges would
amount to pardoning the alleged incident and
subsequent reinstatement in service. It is submitted that
inquiry was proceeded with premeditated intention to
terminate the applicant as the inquiry was concluded on
12.10.2021 and the findings of the inquiry was accepted
Page 6 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
on 13.10.2021. Learned advocate Ms.Acharya submits
that even criminal charges, where he was tried before
the learned criminal court , resulted into acquittal. In
that background also the impugned judgment and award
deserves to be set aside and the petition is required to
be allowed.
6. Per contra, learned advocate Mr.Patel appearing for the
respondent submitted that the petitioner was appointed
as a Badli Worker on 01.12.2014. Petitioner was
terminated on 20.10.2021 due to his misbehavior and
using abusive and filthy language to his Shift In-charge
where he has treated the Superior which resulted into
bleeding injuries. Domestic Inquiry was held for the
breach of 24(h) and 24(k) of the Model Standing Orders
and the suspension orders were passed by the
respondent.
6.1. Petitioner has admitted the charges and therefore,
inquiry report is submitted and relying on the said
report the services were terminated on 20.10.2021. The
said termination order is challenged before the learned
reference court under section 11(A) of the ID Act
wherein, the legality and validity of the inquiry remains
Page 7 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
unchallenged. Petitioner has been found guilty of hitting
and bleeding injuries to his Shift In-charge at the outside
of premises in presence of other employees he has
committed breach of discipline in the organization. It is
submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Patel that
discipline at the work place in an organization like the
employer is the sine qua known for the efficient working
of the organization. When an employee breaches such
discipline and the employer terminates his services, it is
not open for the learned court to take a view that the
punishment awarded is shockingly disproportionate to
the charges proved.
6.2. It is submitted by the learned advocate Mr.Patel that
if the misconduct is proved then quantum is immaterial.
It is the loss of confidence that the matters in such
circumstances if the learned labour court chooses to
uphold the order of dismissal and refuse to interfere
with such termination, there is no error committed by
the learned reference court. Learned advocate Mr.Patel
submits that action of the petitioner cannot be tolerated
and therefore, after conducting a proper inquiry,
services were terminated, in that background no
Page 8 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
interference is required and the petition is required to
be dismissed.
7. Having considered the arguments advanced by the
learned advocate for the respective parties and on
referring the documentary evidences which are
produced along with the petition, it transpires that the
Senior Officers namely Rameshkumar has filed a
complaint in the HR department alleging that on
24.08.2021 when he went for the round of plant, the
petitioner was running the pot and filling the cake. He
was made to understand with regard to the personal
safety and SOP violence and report was submitted in the
log book. On 27.08.2021 in the at around 6.10 a.m. when
he completed his night shift and was going home
alongwith co-employee namely Mahesh Nimavat, the
petitioner came in front of the main gate and asked him
to stop and pulled him from the motorcycle and started
threatening him and had beaten him badly on head,
eyes, stomach and noes which caused bleeding injuries
to the complainant and started using abusive and filthy
language. Thereafter, he assaulted the complainant
namely Rameshkumar and he tried to abduct, at that
Page 9 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
point of time, the co-employee has intervened in the
quarrel and the complainant made a call to the Plant
Manager namely Munilal Sharma and explained the
incident. Thereafter, with the help of the Manager,
complainant was taken to Aditya Birla Hospital.
7.1. On receiving the said complaint dated 27.08.2021, the
suspension order was passed on the same day on i.e.
27.08.2021 for breach of 24(h) and 24(k) of the Model
Standing Orders. Reply was given by the petitioner on
01.10.2021 alleging that the complainant namely
Rameshkumar and Mahesh Nimavat dashed their bike
on the leg of the petitioner and thereafter, quarrel took
place and threats were issued that his progress report
would be marked in negative form in the Company. The
petitioner has denied for the incident of assault
thereafter on 03.09.2021 the inquiry officer was
appointed and he has recorded the statement of the
present petitioner in which the admission is made with
regard to the guilty of assault by the present petitioner.
The report was submitted by the inquiry officer on
12.10.2021 wherein, the petitioner was held guilty for
violation of 24(h) and 25(k) of the Model Standing
Page 10 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
Orders, thereafter, second show cause notice was issued
on 30.10.2021 proposing the dismissal from the service
of the present petitioner. The petitioner has replied the
said show cause notice on 20.10.2021 and has tendered
his unconditional apology and assured that in future no
such incident would take place. Thereafter, the dismissal
order came to be passed on 20.10.2021 which was
challenged before the learned labour court in the
proceedings initiated under section 11(A) of the ID Act.
7.2. The judgment of the acquittal which was passed by
the learned criminal court, if one would peruse then it
appears that the settlement arrived between the parties
and therefore, complainant was declared hostile and in
that background the acquittal order was passed. It
transpires from the record that subsequent to the
dismissal order, complainant namely Rameshram has
left the company and therefore, settlement arrived. The
departmental proceedings which was initiated for
breach of 24(h) and 25(k) of the Model Standing Orders
is required to be referred herein below which is
reproduced:-
“24H: habitual breach of any standing order or any law applicable
Page 11 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
to the establishment, or any rules made thereunder;
24(k): drunkenness, writers, disorderly, or indecent behaviour on
the premises of the establishment.”
8. The moot question arising for consideration is that, even
if uncontroverted allegation of misconduct is set out in
the charge sheet extracted, would it cover the clauses of
25(k) of the Model Standing Orders. To decide the above
question, the decision rendered by the Apex Court as
well as various High Courts which was relied by the
learned advocates for the respective parties are required
to be referred to.
8.1. The Apex Court in Southern Petrochemicals
Industries Co.Ltd. v. Electricity Inspector and Etio
and others (2007) 5 SCC 447, has held as under:
“…Omission of words in a particular statute may play an
important role. The intention of the legislature must be, as is well
known, gathered from the words used in the statute at the first
instance and only when such a rule would give rise to anomalous
situation, may the court take recourse to purposive construction. It
is also a well-settled principle of law that casus omissus cannot be
supplied. [See J.Srinivasa Rao v. Government of A.P. (2006) 12
SCC607].”
8.2. The Apex Court in Bhuwalka Steel Industries Ltd.
v. Bombay Iron and Steel Labour Board and
another reported in (2010) 2 SCC 273, has held as
Page 12 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
under:
“We have already pointed out that the plain meaning of the
language is almost a rule and it is only by way of an exception
that the external aids of interpretation can be used. In Bhaiji vs.
SDO this Court has reiterated that where the language of the
statute is clear and unambiguous, the external aids for
interpretation should be avoided. In Cable Corporation of India
Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Labour, this Court observed in para 16
that when the language is plain and unambiguous and admits of
only one meaning, no question of construction of a statute arises,
for the Act speaks for itself.”
8.3. The Apex Court in Satheedevi v. Prasanna and
another, reported in (2010) 5 SCC 622 has held as
under:
“12. Before proceeding further, we may notice two well
recognised rules of interpretation of statutes. The first and primary
rule of construction is that the intention of the legislature must be
found in the words used by the legislature itself. If the words
used are capable of one construction, only then it would not be
open to the courts to adopt any other hypothetical construction on
the ground that such hypothetical construction is more consistent
with the alleged object and policy of the Act. The words used in
the material provisions of the statute must be interpreted in their
plain grammatical meaning and it is only when such words are
capable of two constructions that the question of giving effect to
the policy or object of the Act can legitimately arise-Kanai Lal Sur
v. Paramnidhi Sadhukhan AIR1957 SC 907.
13. The other important rule of interpretation is that the court
cannot rewrite, recast or reframe the legislation because it has noPage 13 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
power to do so. The court cannot add words to a statute or read
words which are not there in it. Even if there is a defect or an
omission in the statute, the court cannot correct the defect or
supply the omission-Union of India vs. Deoki Nandan Aggrawal
1992 Supp (1) SCC 323 and Shyam Kishori Devi v. Patna
Municipal Corporation AIR 1966 SC 1678.”
8.4. The Apex Court in Special Land Acquisition Officer
v Karigowda and others, reported in (2010) 5 SCC
708 has held as under:
“The legislature in its wisdom has laid down the procedures and
the guidelines which have to be adopted by the authorities
concerned and subsequently by the court of competent jurisdiction
in regard to the acquisition of land and payment of compensation
thereof. It is expected of the State to pay compensation
expeditiously. Thus, it is obligatory on the part of the court to
follow the legislative intent in exercise of its judicial discretion.
The legislative intent is of definite relevancy when the court is
interpreting the law.”
8.5. The Court in Vijaya Bank v. Shyamal Kumar Lodh
reported in (2010) 7 SCC 635 has held as under:
“19….Every word used by the legislature carries meaning and
therefore effort has to be made to give meaning to each and
every word used by it. A construction brushing aside words in a
statute is not a sound principle of construction. The court avoids a
construction, if reasonably permissible on the language, which
renders an expression or part of the statute devoid of any
meaning or application.
20. The legislature never wastes its words or says anything in vain
Page 14 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
and a construction rejecting the words of a statute is not resorted
to, excepting for compelling reasons….”
8.6. The Apex Court in Afcon Infrastructure Limited
and another v. Cherian Varkey Construction
Company Private Ltd. and others reported in (2010)
8 SCC 24, has held as under:
“The principles of statutory interpretation are well settled. Where
the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous, the provision
should be given its plain and normal meaning, without adding or
rejecting any words. Departure from the literal rule, by making
structural changes or substituting words in a clear statutory
provision, under the guise of interpretation will pose a great risk
as the changes may not be what the legislature intended or
desired. Legislature wisdom cannot be replaced by the Judge’s
views. As observed by this Court in a somewhat different context:
“6….When a procedure is prescribed by the legislature, it is not
for the court to substitute a different one according to its notion
of justice. When the legislature has spoken, the judges cannot
afford to be wiser.” (See Shri Mandir Sita Ramji vs. Lt. Governor
of Delhi (1975) 4 SCC 298 p 301, para 6.”
8.7. The Apex Court in Competition Commission of
India v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. and another,
reported in (2010) 10 SCC 744 has held as under:
“45. To us, the language of the section is clear and the statute
does not demand that we should substitute “or” or read this word
interchangeably for achieving the object of the Act. On the
contrary, the objective of the Act is more than clear that thePage 15 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
legislature intended to provide a very limited right to appeal. The
orders which can be appealed against have been specifically
stipulated by unambiguously excluding the provisions which the
legislature did not intend to make appealable under the provisions
of the Act. It is always expected of the court to apply plain rule
of construction rather than trying to read the words into statute
which have been specifically omitted by the legislature.
52. A statute is stated to be the edict of legislature. It expresses
the will of legislature and the function of the court is to interpret
the document according to the intent of those who made it. It is
a settled rule of construction of statute that the provisions should
be interpreted by applying plain rule of construction. The courts
normally would not imply anything which is inconsistent with the
words expressly used by the statute. In other words, the court
would keep in mind that its function is jus dicere, not jus dare.
The right of appeal being creation of the statute and being a
statutory right does not invite unnecessarily liberal or strict
construction. The best norm would be to give literal construction
keeping the legislative intent in mind.”
8.8. The Apex Court in Shanker Raju v. Union of India
reported in (2011) 2 SCC 132 has held as under:
“34….In a court of law or equity, what the legislature intended to
be done or not to be done can only be legitimately ascertained
from what it has chosen to enact either in express words or by
reasonable and necessary implication. It is apt to remember to the
words of Lord Salmon in IRC vs. Rossminster Ltd. It is stated (AC
p.1017)
“…However, much the courts may deprecate an Act they must
apply it. It is not possible by torturing its language or by anyPage 16 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
other means to construe it so as to give it a meaning which
Parliament clearly did not intend it to bear.”
35. We may also add that where the legislature clearly declares its
intent in the scheme of a language of statute, it is the duty of the
court to give full effect to the same without scanning its wisdom
or policy and without engrafting, adding or implying anything
which is not congenial to or consistent with such express intent of
the legislature. Hardship or inconvenience cannot alter the
meaning employed by the legislature if such meaning is clear on
the fact of the statute. If the statutory provisions do not go far
enough to relieve the hardship of the Member, the remedy lies
with the legislature and not in the hands of the court.”
8.9. The Apex Court in B. Premchand and others v.
Mohan Koikal and others, reported in 2011 (3)
SCALE 598 has held as under:
“15. In M/s. Hiralal Ratanlal v. STO, AIR 1973 SC 1034, this
Court observed:
“In construing a statutory provision, the first and foremost
rule of construction is literal construction. All that the
Court has to see at the very outset is what does the
provision say. If the provision is unambiguous and if from
the provision the legislative intent is clear, the Court need
not call the into aid the other rules of construction of
statutes. The other rules of construction are called into aid
only when the legislative intent is not clear.” (emphasis
supplied).
16. It may be mentioned in this connection that the first and
foremost principle of interpretation of a statute in every system of
interpretation is the literal rule of interpretation. The other rulesPage 17 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATIONC/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
of interpretation e.g. the mischief rule, purposive interpretation
etc. can only be resorted to when the plain words of a statute are
ambiguous or lead to no intelligible results or if read literally
would nullify the very object of the statute. Where the words of a
statute are absolutely clear and unambiguous, recourse cannot be
had to the principles of interpretation other than the literal rule,
vide Swedish Match AB vs. Securities and Exchange Board, India,
AIR 2004 SC 4219. As held in Prakash Nath Khanna vs. C.I.T.
2004(9) SCC 686, the language employed in a statute is the
determinative factor of the legislative intent. The legislature is
presumed to have made no mistake. The presumption is that it
intended to say what it has said. Assuming there is a defect or an
omission in the words used by the legislature, the Court cannot
correct or make up the deficiency, vide Delhi Financial
Corporation vs. Rajiv Anand 2004 (11) SCC 625. Where the
legislative intent is clear from the language, the Court should give
effect to it, vide Government of Andhra Pradesh vs. Road Rollers
Owners Welfare Association 2004(6) SCC 210, and the Court
should not seek to amend the law in the garb of interpretation.”
8.10. This Court has referred to the decision rendered in
the case of Glaxo Laboratories (I) Limited versus
Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and Others
reported in 1984 1 SCC 1, wherein, it emerges that,
that was the case before the Apex Court where
allegation is made that some of the striking workman
including the respondent boarded the bus and during
the journey in the bus, at different places, manhandled
Page 18 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
the loyal workman, therefore, as per the chargesheet the
same constitute the misconduct specified in clause 10,
16, 30 of the order 22. The relevant clause 10 which is
identical in the instant case is reproduced herein below:-
“(10) Drunkenness, fighting, indecent or disorderly behaviour, use
of abusive language, wrongfully interfering with the work of other
employees or conduct likely to cause a breach of the peace or
conduct endangering the life or safety of any other person, assault
or threat of assault any act subversive of discipline and efficiency
and any act involving moral turpitude, committed within the
premises of the establishment, or in the vicinity thereof;”
8.11. Therefore, the question before the Apex Court was to
examine whether the charges imputing the misconduct
as framed by the appellant company would be covered
by sections 10, 16, 30 of the Standing Orders 22? Where
the Apex Court has held as under:-
“9. Therefore, the primary question that needs consideration is
whether the various acts of misconduct collocated in clause 10
would constitute misconduct punishable under S.O. 23, if
committed within the premises of the establishment or in the
vicinity thereof or irrespective of the time-place content, they are
per se such acts of misconduct that they would be punishable
notwithstanding where and when they were committed.
10. Every industrial establishment to which the Act applies is
under a statutory obligation to draw up and submit to the
Certifying Officer five copies of the draft standing orders for
adoption in the industrial establishment (Sec. 3). Sec. 5 requires
Page 19 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
the Certifying Officer to forward the copy of the draft standing
order to the trade union, if any, of the workmen, or where there
is no such trade union, to the workmen in such manner as may
be prescribed, together with a notice in the prescribed form
requiring them to submit their objections, if any Sub-sec. (2) of
sec. 5 requires the Certifying Officer to decide after hearing the
representatives of the employer and the trade union or the
workmen : whether or not any modification of or addition to the
draft submitted by the employer is necessary. Such certified
standing orders shall be filed by the Certifying Officer in a register
in the prescribed form maintained for the purpose and the
Certifying Officer shall furnish a copy thereof to any person
applying therefor on payment of the prescribed fee. Sec. 12
excludes oral evidence having the effect of adding to or otherwise
varying or contradicting standing orders as finally certified under
the Act. Sec. 13C, which is in part pari materia with Sec. 11A of
the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 confers jurisdiction on the
Labour Court constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
to entertain an application for interpretation of a standing order
certified under the Act. The scheme of the Act would show that
the certified standing orders have more or less a statutory flavour.
If that be so, ordinary canons of construction of a statute would
be attracted where a dispute arises about the construction or
interpretation of a certified standing order.
11. No canon of construction of a statute is more firmly
established than this that the purpose of interpretation is to give
effect to the intention underlying the statute and therefore unless
the grammatical construction leads to an absurdity, it is safe to
give words their natural meaning because the framer is presumed
to use the language which conveys the intention. If two
Page 20 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
constructions are possible, it is equally well-established that the
construction which advances the intention of the legislation,
remedies the mischief to thwart which it is enacted should be
accepted.
16. Reference was also made to Central India Coalfields Ltd.
Calcutta v. Ram Bilas Shobnath in which scope and ambit of S.O.
29(5) came up for consideration before this Court. The Industrial
Tribunal had held that the alleged misconduct had taken place
outside the working hours as well as outside the pit where the
respondent had to discharge his duties and accordingly he could
not be punished under S.O. 37. This Court while allowing the
appeal of the employer observed that ‘normally this standing order
would apply to the behaviour on the premises where the workmen
discharge their duties and during the hours of their work.” It was
further observed that ‘it may also be conceded that if a quarrel
takes place between workmen outside working hours and away
from the coal premises that would be a private matter which may
not fall within Standing Order No. 29(5).” This Court then
observed that in the special circumstances of this case it is clear
that the incident took place in the quarters at a short distance
from the coal-bearing area. If the incident occurred in the quarters
occupied by the workmen who were working in a nearby coal
bearing area, one can safely conclude that the incident occurred in
the vicinity of the establishment and that was the governing factor
which swayed the decision. And the decision was reached as
specifically stated in the special circumstances of the case while
leaving no trace of doubt about the normal approach in law to the
construction of a standing order that it would apply to the
behaviour on the premises where the workmen discharge their
duties and during working hours of their work. This clearly
Page 21 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
imports time-place content in the matter of construction. This
decision would rather clearly indicate that the misconduct
prescribed in a standing order which would attract a penalty has a
causal connection with the place of work as well as the time at
which it is committed which would ordinarily be within the
establishment and during duty hours.
18. Reference was also made to Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. Its
Workmen. This case should not detain us for a moment because
the standing order with which the court was concerned with in
that case in terms provided ‘that without prejudice to the general
meaning of the term ‘misconduct’, it shall be deemed to mean and
include, inter alia, drunkenness, fighting, riotous or disorderly or
indecent behaviour within or without the factory.’ Mr. Shanti
Bhushan, however, urged that the judgment does not proceed on
the construction of the expression ‘without’ in the relevant
standing order but the ratio of the decision is that purely private
and individual dispute unconnected with employment between the
workmen cannot be the subject matter of enquiry under the
standing order but in order that the relevant standing order may
be attracted it must be shown that the disorderly or riotous
behaviour had some rational connection with the employment of
the assailant and the victim. Approaching the matter from this
angle, it was urged that in the present case the chargesheet under
clauses 2(c) to 2(h) clearly and unmistakably alleged that the ‘loyal
workmen’ were threatened with dire consequences with a view to
frightening them away from responding to the duty and this
provides the necessary link between the disorderly behaviour and
the employment both of the assailant and victim. Even where a
disorderly or riotous behaviour without the premises of the factory
constitutes misconduct, every such behaviour unconnected with
Page 22 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
employment would not constitute misconduct within the relevant
standing order. Therefore, even where the standing order is
couched in a language which seeks to extend its operation far
beyond the establishment, it would none the less be necessary to
establish causal connection between the misconduct and the
employment. And that is the ratio of the decision, and not that
wherever the misconduct is committed ignoring the language of
the standing order if it has some impact on the employment, it
would be covered by the relevant standing order. In order to
avoid any ambiguity being raised in future and a controversial
interpretation question being raised, who must make it abundantly
clear and incontrovertible that the causal connection in order to
provide linkage been the alleged act of misconduct and
employment must be real and substantial, immediate and
proximate and not remote or tenuous. An illustration would
succinctly bring out the difference. One workman severely
belaboured another for duty on the next day. Would this absence
permit the employer to charge the assailant for misconduct as it
had on the working in the industry. The answer is in the
negative. The employer cannot take advantage to weed out
workmen for incidents that occurred far away from his
establishment.
19. Reference was next made to Bharat Iron Works v. Bhagubhai
Balubhai Patel & Ors. The allegation was of vicitimisation which
found favour with the Tribunal and the High Court. This Court
while allowing the appeal of the employer held that the Tribunal
committed a manifest error of law in reaching the conclusion that
the management was guilty of victimisation. We fail to see how
this decision has any relevance to the point under discussion in
this case.
Page 23 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
20. In British India Corporation Ltd v. Bhakshi Sher Singh and
Ors., the respondent-workmen entered the club set up by the
appellant and misbehaved with all and sundry present there. He
was persuaded to leave and when he went out, he kept on
abusing the official of the club. He was charge-sheeted. An
enquiry followed and he was dismissed. The order of dismissal
was set aside by the Tribunal but was restored by this Court in
appeal by the Company. There was no suggestion that the club
premises did not form part of the establishment of the Company.
The decision appears to be on the facts of the case only without
the slightest reference to the question whether the place where
misconduct was committed had any relevance.
22. Having examined the matter both on principle and precedent,
it would clearly emerge that clause 10 of S. O. 22 which collects
various heads of misconduct must be strictly construed being a
penal provision in the sense that on the proof a misconduct
therein enumerated, penalty upto and inclusive of dismissal from
service can be imposed. We see no reason for departing from the
well-established canon of construction that penal provisions must
receive strict construction, and not extended beyond their normal
requirement. The framer’s intention in using the expression
‘committed within the premises of the establishment or in the
vicinity thereof’ are the words of limitation and they must receive
due attention at the hands of the interpreter and the clause should
not receive such broad construction as to render the last clause
redundant.
24. That leaves for our consideration clauses 16 and 30. They
from an integral part of a code and the setting and purpose
underlying these two clauses 16 and 30 must receive the same
construction which clauses 10 received. Therefore, for the reasons
Page 24 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
herein indicated, the heads of charges 2(c) to 2(h) would not be
comprehended in clause 10, 16 and 30 of the S.O. 22 applicable
to the appellant-Company. We broadly agree except for one aspect
specifically mentioned with the conclusion of the High Court.
Accordingly, no case is made out for interfering with the
interpretation put by the Labour Court and confirmed by the High
Court on relevant standing order. The appeal therefore, fails and is
dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000.”
9. In the present case also departmental inquiry initiated
alleging misconduct was in breach of 24(h) and 24(k) of
Model Standing Orders which is admittedly outside of
the main gate of the company. Inquiry report which is
the part of the memo of petition suggests that from the
employers side Shankar Kumar Sharma and Munilal
Sharma were present, however on the defence side one
Ahswingiri Gosai has represented. The inquiry
concluded only on the basis of the admission made by
the employee and the charges were held to be proved.
9.1. The reply to the show cause notice reveals the
contention that the alleged incident occurred outside the
premises, however, without having considered the
apology tendered and the contentions with regard to the
non applicability of the standing order 24(h) and 24(k)
the punishment of dismissal was imposed. The superior
Page 25 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
Officers who lodged the complaint namely Rameshkumar
was declared hostile before the criminal court and has
stated that only hot altercation took place and there was
no assault made by the petitioner. The acquittal
judgment was rendered on 12.09.2022 which is prior to
the date of impugned reference that is 06.06.2023. it
appears that learned reference court has just over-
sighted the above decision while concluding the
reference against the present petitioner. It is true that
the nature of evidence in the disciplinary proceedings
and in the criminal proceedings are different and in
absence of the Honorary acquittal as held by the Apex
Court in the case of State of Rajasthan and others
versus Heem Singh reported in 2021 12 SCC 569 and
the petitioner would not be entitled for the relief of
reinstatement. However, in the opinion of this Court,
when the employer not have extra territorial jurisdiction,
nor he is the mentor of his workman for their well
regulated cultural advancement, the employer cannot
take advantage to feed out the workman for the
incidents that occurred outside of the establishment.
9.2. As per the decision by the Apex Court in Glaxo
Page 26 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
Laboratories (I) Limited versus Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Meerut and Others (supra), if the
power to regulate the behaviour of the workman outside
the duty hours and at any place wherever they may be
was conferred upon the employer, the contract of
service may be reduced to contract of slavery. The
employer is entitled to prescribe the condition of service
more or less specifying the acts of misconduct to be
enforced within the premises where the workmen gather
for tendering services. The employer has power and
jurisdiction to regulate the behaviour of the workman
within the premises of the establishment or for
peacefully carrying the industrial activity in the vicinity
of the establishment. When the broad purpose for
conferring power on the employer to prescribe acts of
misconduct that may be committed by his workman is
kept in view, it is not difficult to ascertain whether the
expression committed within the premises of the
establishment or vicinity thereof would qualify each and
every act of misconduct collected in various clauses.
9.3. The contention of the learned advocate for the
respondent is even if the misconduct committed outside
Page 27 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
of the Gate, would have adverse effect on the peaceful
working of the industrial establishment then irrespective
of the fact that where the misconduct has been
committed, it would be deemed to have been committed
within the premises of establishment and vicinity thereof
and therefore, interpretation of the standing orders is to
be made liberally to maintain the discipline and achieve
the object of standing orders. This Court is of the view
that on a plain reading of the clause the work “on the
premises of the establishment” must be strictly
construed, as on breach of the said standing orders,
penal provisions are there inclusive of dismissal from
service and court did not choose to set out its reasons
for departing from the well established principal that the
penal statues generally receive a strict construction and
as per the general rules, penal enactments are to be
construed strictly and not extended beyond their clear
meaning.
10. In that background this Court is of the view that charges
leveled against the present petitioner for breach of
Model Standing Orders 24(h) and 24(k) which itself is
illegal as the misconduct which is alleged to have been
Page 28 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
conducted outside of the establishment, therefore, the
impugned award passed by the learned labour court
required to be interfered with and the same is required
to be set aside by exercising the power under Article
226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
11. However, this Court is of the view that even if
termination is held illegal then automatic directions for
reinstatement with full back wages is not contemplated
as held by the the Apex Court in the case of Telecom
District Manager And Others vs Keshab Deb ,
reported in 2008 (8) SCC 402. This Court is of the
considered opinion that instead of granting the relief of
reinstatement with back wages, the ends of justice
would meet if the lump sum compensation is awarded
considering the length of service i.e. seven years and
pendency of the litigation.
12. Resultantly, this petition being Special Civil Application
No.17802 of 2023 is partly allowed and the impugned
award passed in Reference Case No.05 of 2022 dated
06.06.2023 is hereby set aside. The respondent is
directed to pay the lump sum compensation of
Rs.4,00,000/- in lieu of the reinstatement and back
Page 29 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/SCA/17802/2023 JUDGMENT DATED: 30/04/2025
undefined
wages to the present petitioner towards the full and final
settlement within a period of eight weeks from today.
13. Rule made absolute to the above extent.
(M. K. THAKKER,J)
NIVYA A. NAIR
Page 30 of 30
Uploaded by MRS. NIVYA ABHAY NAIR(HC01901) on Fri May 02 2025 Downloaded on : Sat May 03 15:47:41 IST 2025
[ad_1]
Source link