A single act of disobedience of a lawful order amounts to insubordination and indiscipline. The Labour Court has no jurisdiction to interfere with the punishment awarded by the employer unless it is mala fide, amounts to victimisation or unfair labour practice, or is shockingly disproportionate.

CHANDURKAR, J.- This is a petition against an award made by the Third Labour Court setting aside the dismissal of respondent No.2 (hereinafter referred to as "the workman") and directing the petitioner to reinstate the workman from 17th June 1969 onwards with continuity of service with full back wages from that date till 10th June 1970.

2. The workman was appointed as a Junior Stenographer with the petitioner company by an appointment order dated 6th April 1965. One of the conditions in the appointment order is that the workman shall diligently and faithfully, carry out instructions given to him by his superiors in connection with the business and to the best of his power, skill and ability, he shall improve and further the business and interest of the company or the companies he will be required to serve. It was specifically stated in the appointment order that the appointment is liable to be terminated immediately if in the opinion of the company, he is found guilty of breach of any of the clauses of the appointment order, insubordination, insolence, gross negligence of duty, dishonesty or embezzlement or accepting any commission or discount, etc. from any merchants or outsiders by placing personal consideration of any nature above the company's interests in such cases.

3. The company which manufactures vitamins, fine chemicals, etc. has its depot and sales office at Bombay and the workman was employed at Bombay. Admittedly on 30th May 1969, the Sales Administrative Officer one Mr. Naik asked the workman to type out delivery challans. As he declined to type out the challans a show cause notice was, therefore, served on the workman by which he was called upon to show cause as to why disciplinary action amounting to dismissal should not be taken against him· The charge-sheet was given by the Sales Administrative Officer who had stated in the show cause notice that he had instructed the workman at 12-30 p. m. on 30th May 1969 to type out delivery challans from the draft shown to him, which he had refused to do. It is further stated that the Officer had emphasised that it was the duty of the workman to type out anything dictated or from a draft and that refusal to carry out these instructions amounted to gross indiscipline and insubordination.

4. An extremely brief explanation was given by the workman in writing on 31st May 1969 which reads as follows: -

“The question of explanation to the said charge of indiscipline and insubordination does not ar1se since I have not committed an act of insubordination or indiscipline as charged. I, therefore, trust that the said letter is immediately withdrawn."

It is apparent from this reply that his case is that he was entitled to refuse to type out the delivery challans.

5. An enquiry was made into the charge of indiscipline and insubordination in the course of which witnesses were examined and cross-examined. The workman stated in the Course of the enquiry that he did not want to add anything further to what he had stated in his reply.

6. After he had made this statement witnesses were examined by the Enquiry Officer. Mr. Naik who had asked the workman to type out the delivery challans was examined and he deposed that the workman had told him that "It is not my work and I will not do it." Naik also further stated that be had told the workman that this was typing work and he was supposed to do it as per instruct ions, but the workman once again said" I will not do 1t". Naik stated that to maintain discipline in office, such an act of flagrant violence of orders cannot be tolerated. When the workman refused to type out the delivery challans, the Regional Sales Officer was present and he was also examined in the course of the enquiry. Another stenographer by name P. G. Nayak was also examined and he deposed that in February 1969 the workman had typed out statements from a draft given by the Management. He was cross-examined by the workman and in cross-examination Nayak had stated tha