SURESH S PATIL Vs. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE learned Single Judge has followed a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of munchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd v. Workmen reported in (1975-I-LLJ-391 ). This judgment of the Supreme Court was of a Bench of three judges. The Supreme Court considering a standing Order which was worded in identical language as the Standing Order which was for consideration before the learned single Judge here. There is no difference at all in the language of the two Standing Orders. The Supreme Court interpreted Standing Order 24 (1)which was before it viz. Commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment" to mean that an act wherever committed should be such that it would have the effect of subverting discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment. In the case before the Supreme Court, the workmen concerned had committed assault in the train between Thane and Mulund, which was outside the premises of the establishment. The Supreme Court nevertheless said that the act amounted to a misconduct because it was subversive of discipline or good behaviour within the premises or precincts of the establishment. The facts of the present case are somewhat similar. The assault in the present case has also taken place in a train, i. e. outside the precincts of the establishment. But it was subversive of discipline and good behaviour within the establishment. As against this judgment of the Supreme Court there is another subsequent judgment of the supreme Court which is also of a Bench of three Judges in the case of Glaxo Laboratories (India)Ltd. v. Labour Court Meerut and Ors. reported in (1984-I-LLJ-16) The Supreme Court considered the earlier decision of the Supreme Court in Munchandani's case and distinguished it in paragraph 12 of the judgment on the ground that the language of the Standing Order which was considered by the Supreme Court in Munchandani's case was different from the language of the Standing Order which was being considered by the Supreme Court in the case before it. The standing Order before the Supreme Court in Glaxo Laboratories's case is quite different from the standing Order which is before us. On the language of the Standing Order which was before the supreme Court in the Glaxo Laboratories's case, the Supreme Court said that the only construction which can be put on that Standing Order is that the various acts of misconduct which are set out in the Standing Order should be committed within the premises of the establishment or in its vicinity for them to amount to misconduct. The learned Single Judge has held that looking to the language of the Standing Order which was before him, the ratio of munchandani's case will be applicable and not the ratio of Glaxo Laboratories's case. We agree with this conclusion arrived at by the learned Single Judge. Appeal dismissed. It is needless to say that the judgment which is upheld by the learned Single Judge, is the judgment and order passed by the Industrial Tribunal under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial disputes Act in Reference No. 95 of 1978, and it will have effect as such.