Consumption of liquor whether an offence involving moral turpitude.

1. The short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is whether a conviction for consumption of liquor under the Provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act will amount to a conviction for an offence involving moral turpitude. The facts may be stated as follows. The petitioner is the management of Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd, Madras. The second respondent, Doss, was an employee under the management on a monthly remuneration of Rs. 260. According to the management, the second respondent was engaged under a contract basis along with others to load tractors manufactured by the management on the railway wagons at Korukkupet railway yard as and when railway wagons are available. While so, the management came to know that the second respondent was said to have been arrested for consuming liquor on 1-2-1976 and he was ordered to pay a fine of Rs. 60 by the Magistrate. Between 1-2-76 and 16-2-76 he did not turn up for work. On 17-2-76 when the second respondent turned up for work the management refused to entertain him. It is the case of management that the conviction was for an offence involving moral turpitude and therefore, when the second respondent turned up for work on 17-2-76 he was not allowed to do any work. Thereupon, at his instance an industrial dispute was raised regarding the non-employment of the second respondent. The first Addl. Labour Court, Madras found that the punishment under a prohibition case would not involve any moral turpitude and consequently the non-employment of the 2nd respondent was not justified. The management further contended before the Labour Court that the second respondent was not a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act and that consequently the second respondent could not be granted the relief of reinstatement. The latter objection was also overruled by the Labour Court and it ordered the second respondent to be reinstated with all back wages and attendant benefit. Hence this writ petition.

2. Mr. Sanjay Mohan, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged two contentions, Firstly, the conviction for the offence of consumption of liquor under the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act would involve moral turpitude. The second respondent having been so convicted was liable to be removed from service, under the model standing orders which are the standing orders applicable to the management. Secondly, the second respondent was only employed on a contract basis for the purpose of loading the tractors manufactured by the management on to the railway wagon as and when available. There is no master and servant relationship between the management and the second respondent. The second respondent, therefore, cannot claim to be a workman within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. In the circumstances, the Labour Court committed an error in directing reinstatement of the second respondent with all backwages and attendant benefits.

3. Mr. Venkataraman, the learned counsel for the second respondent repudiated both the contentions of Mr. Sanjay Mohan. Mr. Venkataraman urged that the second respondent was a workman under the management and that the Labour Court had also clearly found that the second respondent was a workman under the management within the meaning of the Industrial Disputes Act. The learned counsel further urged that the management did not plead that the model standing orders applied to it, and that it was only at the stage of argument before this Court that resort was being made to the model standing orders. The learned counsel further contended that the offence of consumption of liquor without a permit under the provisions of the Tamil Nadu Prohibition Act would not constitute an offence involving moral turpitude and consequently the second respondent was not justified.

4. I shall first take up for consideration the question whether the second respondent has been convicted for an offence involving moral turpitude. In the counter-statement filed b