JUDGMENT

Per Mitter, J.-This is an appeal by special leave from an award of the labour court, Ranchi in a reference under Sec. 10(1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The dispute which was referred was:

"Whether Shri Prabhunath Singh, Store Mazdoor, T. No. 2897 is entitled to reinstatement and/or any other relief ?"

The facts shortly are as follows. The petitioner was an employee of Messrs. Refractory and Ceramic Works, Culfarbari under the management of Burn and Company. He was dismissed on February 8, 1966. He joined his employment on July 5, 1965. He was charged with certain alleged acts of misdemeanour under the works standing standing orders for incidents which had taken place on 16th and 17th November 1965. The charge sheet was issued to him on 13th November 1965. Put shortly, the charges against him were:-

On November 16, 1965 between the hours of 4 and 4.30 p.m., i.e., before the close of the factory for the day, the employee had been asked to carry a bag of sugar to the canteen by one B. Mukherjee who was in charge of the stores. On that day, there were only four workmen instead of six whose normal duty would include the carrying of the said bag of sugar. According to the management, Prabhunath Singh along with Gopal were asked to take the bag to the canteen. Prabhunath Singh not only refused to do the work but indulged in argument with Shri Mukherjee showing insubordination or wilful disobedience.

According to the management, on November 17, 1965, another mazdoor by the name of Hari was asked to bring tea from the canteen for Shri Mukherjee and such work, among others, used to be done by the mazdoors regularly. Prabhunath left his job and came over to Hari to obstruct him from going to bring tea. He was asked as to why he had left his job and was interfering with another s job. Prabhunath however persisted in asking hari not to go to the canteen.

Prabhunath had himself recorded a complaint against Shri Mukherjee. According to him, on 16th November he had protested that four men could not be asked to do the work of six and thereupon he was threatened that if the work was not completed a charge sheet would be issued to him. As regards the incident on the 17th, Prabhunath s version was entirely different from Mukherjee s. According to Prabhunath, Mukherjee had, without any cause, pushed him by the neck and asked him to get out when he was sorting out knives in front of the oil godown.

The board of enquiry constituted to investigate into the charge sheet examined a number of persons including Prabhunath Singh, his colleagues, Gopal, Pran, Hari and Sagar Mandal, besides K. B. Biswas, B. P. Mukherjee, P. K. Gopalan and M. R, Das on the managerial side. According to the board, Prabhunath Singh was guilty of all the charges levelled against him. The board found that he did not carry out the instructions of his superior and that he had interfered with the work of another employee, besides being disorderly in his conduct on the morning of 17th. The board further found that he could not produce any witness to prove his defence and that he had falsely implicated Mukherjee of the charge that Mukherjee had thrashed him.

According to clause 14(b) of the standing orders of the company, wilful disobedience or insubordination and interference with the work of other employees were to be regarded as major misdemeanours. The said clause of the standing orders provided:

"A worker may be dismissed without notice or compensation in lieu of notice if he is found to be guilty of a major misdemeanour

....................................

In awarding punishment under this standing order, the manager shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record, if any, of the workman and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances that may exist........."

Before the labour court a story of victimisation of the workers had been put forward. The court held that it was totally without any merit as also that "the incidents as alleged by Sh