Standing Order 24(B) (J), which prohibits causing or threatening to cause physical injury to others, is wide in its scope and embraces even assaults committed to a person who is not an employee of the establishment.

R.N.Sahay, J.

1. The petitioner, at the relevant time was employed as Mechanic in the maintenance department of Respondent No. 2 Management of Bagroo Bauxite Mine of M/s. Indian Aluminium Company Limited. Charge sheet was served on the petitioner by the management on February 6, 1979 alleging misconduct covered under Clause 24-B (9) and 24-B (J) of the Standing Order applicable to the petitioner. The petitioner was charged that on February 4, 1979 at about 8.30 A.M. he stabbed one Mahabir Ram Verma with a dagger, at the main entrance gate near the General Office. It is further alleged that when Shri Ashok Kumar Jain tried to intervene and dissuade the concerned workman from inflicting injury on the person of Shri Mahabir Ram Verma, Shri Ashok Kumar Jain was also stabbed by the concerned workman. The management took this act of the concerned workman as gross misconduct punishable under the relevant Standing Order. In reply to the charge sheet, the petitioner stated the circumstances in which the occurrence took place. The management was not satisfied with the explanation and ordered for a domestic enquiry to be conducted against the petitioner. During the course of inquiry, the witnesses were examined on oath form both the sides. On behalf of the management, only three witnesses were examined and on behalf of the petitioner, only one witness was examined. In course of inquiry, the conducting officer examined several witnesses for clarification.

2. The plea of the petitioner was that while he was on duty, Shri Mahavir Ram Verma and Shri Ashok Kumar Jain along with several other persons surrounded him near the gate and assaulted him. The petitioner apprehended that he could be killed by those persons and as such in order to escape from them he took out his Kirpan and started wielding. The petitioner took shelter in a room of the General Office. A mob of about 50 persons gathered in front of the said room and broke open the door. The petitioner again wielded his dagger so that the assailants be prevented to assault the petitioner. In the meanwhile the police arrived there and took the petitioner to (sic.) the police station. A criminal case was also registered against the petitioner. The petitioner was convicted by the trial Court and the appeal preferred by the petitioner was also dismissed. However, the petitioner was acquitted by this Hon ble Court in Criminal Revision No. 32 of 1983 (R).

3. The Inquiry Officer found the petitioner guilty of the charges aforesaid and in due course, the petitioner was dismissed form service. The petitioner contended before the Inquiry Officer that the Standing Order under which action was taken against the petitioner was not applicable. It was contended that Mahavir Ram Verma, General Secretary of the Labour Union was not a workman of the company. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute and the Govt. of India referred the dispute before the Labour Court, Dhanbad for adjudication; "Whether action of the management (Annexure-1) of Bagroo Bauxite Mine of M/s. Indian Aluminium Company Limited in dismissing from service Sri Manohar Singh Neech, Mechanic with effect from April 28, 1979 is justified? If not, to what relief the workman is entitled?

4. The case of the management in the Labour Court was that on April 4, 1979 at about 8.30 A.M. the petitioner stabbed one Mahabir Ram Verma and Ashok Kumar Jain with a dagger at the main entrance gate of the office. In the domestic inquiry, the petitioner was given opportunity to place his case before the inquiry officer: Inquiry was held in accordance with the principles of natural justice. The management, after taking into consideration the report considered it desirable to impose punishment of dismissal of the petitioner in view of the grave nature of the accusation. The management, therefore, justified its impugned action before the Labour Court.

5. The learned Labour Court proceeded to examine the main question whether punishment of dismissal