( 1. ) BY this petition the petitioner challenges the orders Annexures P-2 and P-3, respectively passed by the Labour Court and Industrial Court, on 3. 5. 1983 and 29. 5. 1985.

( 2. ) PETITIONER is the Manager of the factory where respondent No. 1 was employed at the material point and was working as Roll-man-cum-Mukaddam. Shri N. P. Bhatnagar is an Electrical Engineer and Manager of the factory and was overall in-charge of the works. On 18. 12. 1978 at or about 10. 45 a. m. Shri Bhatnagar directed a worker Ramadhar to do a particular job and one worker Lotu Kesari of grinding section, was also directed by him to help Ramadhar. At 11. 15 a. m. when Shri Bhatnagar was proceeding to Rolls section of the factory, it is alleged that respondent No. 1 stopped him and started showering dirty and filthy abuses of mother and sister upon him and also threw threats of life and limb. The threat was that at noon time when he is at the gate Shri Bhatnagar will be beaten badly. It is also alleged that respondent No. 1, to execute his threat called some persons of labour union, friendly to him, to be present at the gate at 2. 30 p. m. Shri Bhatnagar, immediately reported the incident to his superior officer. At 2. 30 p. m. respondent No. 1 was allegedly seen at the gate with some persons. Respondent No. 1 was subsequently chargesheeted for his misconduct and a regular departmental enquiry was held under Rule 12 (4) of M. P. Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. The Inquiry Officer found respondent No. 1 guilty of disorderly conduct and held that he has committed major misconduct during his employment. According to the Enquiry Officer respondent No. 1 was found to be guilty of major misconduct covered by the Standard Standing Order 12 (1) (f ). Respondent No. 1 when found guilty, by way of punishment he was dismissed from employment in accordance with the provisions of Rule 12 (3) (b) (vi ).

( 3. ) AGGRIEVED by this dismissal order respondent No. 1 filed an application under Section 31 of the M. P. Industrial Relations Act of 1960, before respondent No. 2, the Labour Court of Bhopal and claimed inter alia, his reinstatement with back wages. Petitioner on notice appeared before respondent No. 2 and contested the proceedings and raised several objections. Respondent No. 2 after concluding the hearing, handed over its judgments (Annexure P-2) findings as recorded by respondent No. 2 are summarised below :-

(i) Application of respondent No. 1 under Section 31 of the M. P. Industrial Relation Act was maintainable. (ii)The enquiry conducted by the Inquiry Officer of the factory was neither illegal nor improper. (iii) As the departmental enquiry was found to be legal and proper it is now not necessary to state again that charges of misconduct were found proved on merits against respondent No. 1. (iv) As relief the respondent No. 1 was directed to be reinstated with half back wages.

( 4. ) PETITIONER by way of appeal, after being aggrieved by the judgment of respondent No. 2, preferred an appeal before the Industrial Court of M. P. , Indore, which was dismissed by judgment Annexure P-3. In this judgment findings of respondent No. 2 were confirmed and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. In Annexure P-3 it was observed that departmental enquiry cannot be set aside because most of the facts alleged were admitted by the respondent No. 1. In para 7 of the impugned judgment the respondent No. 3, accepted the finding of major misconduct on the part of respondent No. 1 to be correct and concluded that filthy abuses of mother and sister were hurled at Shri Bhatnagar by respondent No. 1 and evidence in this regard, given during enquiry, is reliable. In para 8 of Annexure P-3 the Industrial Court concluded that the latter part of the incident i. e. calling persons at the gate at 2. 30 p. m. by respondent No. 1 is also reliable but the persons called were union workers and respondent No. 1 was himself a labour union leader. In para 9