1. Both these writ application is arise out of a common Award. They have been heard together and are being disposed of together.

2. In C.W.J.C. No 713 of 1979, the petitioner is the Bihar State Co-operative Marketing Union Limited (shortly called Biscouman and referred to as such for the sake of brevity) which has challenged the order of the Labour Court dated 7.2.79 (Annexure 1) directing reinstatement of Sudheshwar Prasad alia, Sidheshwar Prasad (respondent No.2), a dismissed employee, and awarding him Rs. 300/-as compensation. The other writ application, C.W.J.C. No. 1399 of 1379 is by the employee, Sudheshwar Prasad, in which he has prayed for modifying the order of the Labour Court and for allowing him back wages i.e. from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement.

3. Sudheshwar Prasad was working as a peon in the office of Biscouman, opposite Gandhi Maidan, in the town of Patna. The allegation against him is that on 7.4.76 one Chandrika Ram, another peon working in Biscouman, filed a complaint before the Managing Director to the effect that while he was talking with some of the employees at the Canteen near the Guest House, at about 3 O' clock, Sudheshwar Prasad all on a sudden assaulted with a small baton which he always used to carry and abused him. He named the canteen owner Rajendra and Bishundeo and Sukhram, drivers of Biscouman, as having witnessed the occurrence on the said report, the Managing Director Shri N.K. Jha directed the Chief of the Fertilizer business, to hold an enquiry and report. The Chief of the Fertilizer business held an enquiry and submitted his report (Annexure 7) on 3.5.76. Thereupon, the Managing Director directed a departmental proceeding to be started against Sudheshwar Prasad. Charge was accordingly framed against him. A copy of the charge sheet has been filed as Annexure 8. It contains four items of charges. Sudheshwar Prasad filed his written statement on 10.6.76 (Annexure 9) denying the charges. Shri Ranchhor Prasad Sinha was appointed Enquiry Officer who, after enquiry, submitted his report on 18.6.76 (Annexure 12). At the said enquiry, witnesses were examined and some documents were also produced. On the basis of the said report, the Managing Director, by letter dated 20.8.76, dismissed Sudheshwar Prasad from service with immediate effect. Sudheshwar Prasad thereafter filed a complaint under section 26 of the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) on 21.9.76 before the Labour Court challenging the order of dismissal on the grounds mentioned therein (Annexure 9) Before the Labour Court, Biscouman (employer) examined five witnesses and the employee examined himself as witness. Documents were also exhibited before, the Labour Court. After hearing, the Labour Court passed the impugned order which is under challenge.

4. Shri Rama Raman, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the employer, has submitted that the Labour Court has wrongly construed the word 'misconduct' and challenged the findings of the Labour Court as being perverse. In support of his first submission, Shri Rama Raman relied upon rule 20 of the Rules framed under the Shops and Establishment Act (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). Rule 20 lays down the list of acts which may be termed is 'misconduct' and the relevant clause of the rule relied upon to cover the instance of misconduct is clause (h) of sub-rule (1) of the 20, which reads as follows:-

"(h) riotous or disorderly behaviour during working hours at the establishment or any act subversive of discipline."

The Labour Court, In the impugned order, while discussing all the four charges that were framed against the employee in the charge sheet (Annexure 8), observed that no Standing Order was produced before it in this regard. The first charge is regarding causing hurt to Chandrika Ram on 4.4.76 near the Guest House. The second charge is that Sudheshwar Prasad, on 7.4.76, was shouting at the top of voice in a mos