judgment - Gokhale, J.

(1) A rather interesting question relating to the scope and ambit of the powers of the Labour Court under Section 78 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, arises in this petition. The petitioner was employed as a head jobber in the respondent No.2 Mills and had put in about 20 years of continuous service. He was charge-sheeted by the respondent No. 2 Mills on the allegation that he had slapped one Shivappa Hombal on the 24th of April 1960. On account of this alleged behaviour of the petitioner it was contended by the Mills that this conduct amounted to misconduct under the standing orders which were applicable and which were determinative of the relations between the Mills and their employees. It is common ground that the standing orders were settled by the Commissioner of Labour under S. 35 (2) of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946 (hereinafter referred to as the Bombay Act). Standing order 23 enumerates ""acts of omissions constituting misconduct"". Clause (1) of standing order 23 contemplates ""the commission of any act, subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the undertaking."" It was alleged by the Mills that the petit

Click Here to Read the rest of this document