Wilful insubordination includes defiance of persons in authority, whether or not they are the direct superiors of the workmen charged, and also includes riotous conduct which makes it impossible for the higher officers to discharge their duties properly.

Judgement

SARKAR, J.: This is an appeal against the award of an industrial tribunal holding that the dismissal of two workmen by the appellant was unjustified and directing their reinstatement.

2. The appellant has a factory for making yarn out of jute. There were, among others, two departments in the factory, namely, the Spinning and the Batching Departments. The workmen concerned were Ramdhani and Sitaram and they were employed in the Spinning Department. The preliminary stage of the preparation of yarn takes place in the Batching Department which in an unfinished stage is passed on to the Spinning Department for final processing and it is thereafter used for weaving.

3. The appellant s case is that on March 22, 1958, a Roving Sardar of the Batching Department called Jagabandhu informed Ghosh, who was in charge of that department, that Ramdhani was throwing away as unusable some workable roves (slivers of jute drawn out and slightly twisted) which came from the Batching Department to the Spinning Department. Ghosh thereupon went to the Spinning Department and found that the report of the Roving Sardar was correct. He then asked the Roving Sardar to collect the roves thrown away by Ramdhani for being placed before the appropriate authority for inspection. Ghosh obviously intended to make a complaint against Ramdhani s work to the superior authority. At this Ramdhani, who was a Sardar in the Spinning Department, tried to prevent the Roving Sardar from collecting the roves. On Ghosh intervening, Ramdhani took a menacing attitude and abused him in filthy language. Soon, Sitaram, another Sardar of the Spinning Department, who had nothing to do with the matter, came there and took the side of Ramdhani. He also abused Ghosh and further threatened him with violence.

4. Ghosh complained to the Management of the factory about the conduct of Ramdhani and Sitaram and the Management thereupon served charge-sheets on them. The charge-sheets in substance stated that Ramdhani and Sitaram had used abusive and filthy language and threatened to assault Ghosh and they were, therefore, guilty of misconduct under Standing Order No. 14 (c) (i) of the Standing Orders of the appellant. That Standing Order is in these terms :

14 (c) -The following acts and omissions shall be treated as misconduct:-

(i) wilful insubordination, or disobedience, whether alone or in combination with others, of any lawful or reasonable order of a superior.

5. Pursuant to the charge-sheets the appellant s Labour Officer held an enquiry and came to the following findings :

"Both Sitaram and Ramdhani accepted the statement of Jagabandhu the only witness of the incident. Jagabandhu s statement clearly proves the offence of insubordination charge against Sitaram and Ramdhani. These two workmen could not place any witness or evidence by which it could be satisfied that they were not guilty.

The refusal of acceptance of charge sheet is also another misconduct on the part of both these two workmen. Moreover, they not only refused to accept charge sheet to explain their conduct but committed another very serious offence of fomenting and causing other Sardars to stage a stay in strike for two days on 24th and 25th March 1958, and thereby caused serious dislocation of work. The situation created by this stay in strike was so tense that it even threatened the whole work to be dislocated and closure of the entire Mill.

From Jagabandhu s statement and its acceptance by Ramdhani and Sitaram and from their subsequent conduct "I therefore find them guilty of the charge of insubordination and also activities subversive to discipline.

6. The appellant thereupon passed the following order :

"Further to the charge-sheet issued to you on 26-3-58, I have found you guilty of misconduct under R. 14-(c) (i) of the Certified Standing Orders. My decision is that you should be dismissed and I hereby dismiss you from the services of the company.

7. The Union, the respondent in this appeal, then raised an indus