LOMDHAR TANTI Vs. MANAGER, MURMURIA TEA ESTATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the workman -petitioner against the order of the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Count, approving under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, hereinafter called the 'Act' the order of dismissal passed by the management on 3 -9 -1966.

(2.) THE charge against the workman was (vide Annexure B p. 17) that he had built a pucca structure in between two labour quarters without permission and that when he was ordered in writing to dismantle the said unauthorised construction on or before 10 -8 -1966, he failed to do so, despite sufficient time and opportunity having been given to him. Accordingly, the workman was charged with willful disobedience of superior officer's lawful and reasonable orders, which amounted to a gross misconduct within the meaning of Clause 10(a)(1) of the Standing Order. Clause 10(a)(1) reads as under:

(3.) MR . R.C. Choudhuri, the learned Counsel appearing for the workman -petitioner, submits that the disobedience of the workman to refrain from constructing the building in question or to dismantle the said building cannot amount to a misconduct within the meaning of Clause 10(a)(1) of the Standing Order. Mr. Choudhuri has taken the ground that an act to be construed as misconduct must be an, act on the part of the workman, having some rational connection with his terms and obligations as a workman. In support of his contention, he has referred us to the decision in the case of Tata Oil Mills Co. Ltd. v. The Workmen, reported in : (1964)IILLJ113SC . In that decision, their Lordships have held - -'In order that Standing Order 22 (viii) 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.' Their Lordships held that a dispute of a purely private or individual nature would not attract the provisions of Order 22(viii) and amount to a misconduct.