The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of a causal connection between alleged misconduct and employment, and the interpretation of 'subversive of discipline' in the context of the standing orders.

( 1 ) SECOND-RESPONDENT was dismissed from service on the misconduct alleged against him which is as follows:1) ghcraoing the eleven staff members from 5. 15 p. m. on 14-3-1978 to 9 a. m. on 15-3-1978. 2) on 24th march, 1978, obstructing the movement of the company's guest and some members of the staff who were going outside at about 5. 30 p. m. (by car ). 3) instigating the staff members to go on strike and threatening them with dire consequences if they reported for work. 4) assaulting Shri N. Banganathan, on 3-4-1978, near the first railway crossing when he was waiting there for the tempo to come to the factory to attend to his duties. 5) stopping the company's car driven by Sri p. Chandrashekaran, asst. Purchase manager of the company on 11. 5. 1978, when he was returning to the office along with the other member of the staff and threatening the asst. Purchase manager with dire consequences, if he dared to drive the company's car once again. 6) attempting to puncture the front wheels of the car being driven by Sri p. Chandrasekaran, asst. Purchase manager on 11-5-1978, with three of his colleagues, namely, Sri m. g. arjun- wadkar, Sri p. s. hubli, and s. j. fernandis. 7. Assaulting Sri s. s. sawant one of the staff members at the main gate of the factory on 18-5-1978. second respondent gave his explanation to the charge-sheet but the petitioner not being satisfied with the explanation, instituted a domestic enquiry and on the basis of the report made by the inquiry officer concluded that the second respondent deserves dismissal and ordered so. Inasmuch as, certain conciliation proceedings were pending before the first respondent, the petitioner sought for approval of the dismissal with effect from 10-10-1978 under Section 33 (2) (b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, ('act' for short) before the first- respondent. First respondent, after noticing the various proceedings before the enquiry officer and the pleadings before him and the arguments addressed formulated the questions for consideration in the following words:"whether a proper domestic enquiry in accordance with the relevant rules/standing orders has been held by the management or not?"and concluded as follows:"as could be seen from the proceedings that the respondent has been ascerting that he has not committed any misconduct for which applicant can lawfully punish. Even the alleged misconduct if proved, stated that the applicant to the respondent; only model standing orders are applicable; and as per Section 12 (a) of the model standing orders, even according to so No. 22 of the model standing orders, none of the misconduct alleged to not fall under any of the acts which amount to misconduct; and as such the management has no right to punish or even issue charge-sheet for alleged misconduct clause (b) thereof reads thus: "going on an illegal strike or abetting inciting, instigating or acting in furlhcrcnce thereof" clause (k) reads thus; "drunkenness, riotous, disorderly of indecent behaviour on the premises of the establishment clause (1) reads thus: "commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment". The strike of the workman was not illegal. Further the alleged acts of misbehaviour were not committed on the premises of the establishment. Thus, the acts complained of do not fall under any of the acts which amount to misconduct. In the circumstances, the management has no right to punish or even issue any chargesheet for the alleged acts of the respondent. The punishment of dismissal given by the applicant-employer to the respondent workman is thus patently unauthorised and unlawful. It is very relevant and important to this authority to find out whether on the facts admitted or proved in the domestic enquiry, a particular action is in accordance with the standing orders or not. It is very pertinent that the charges should specifically fall under a particular misconduct ennumerated in the