1983 (10) TMI 297 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Disciplinary action for misconduct committed outside the premises.
2. Interpretation of Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22.
3. Jurisdiction and scope of Labour Court and High Court in interpreting standing orders.
4. Applicability of misconduct provisions in Standing Order 22.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Disciplinary Action for Misconduct Committed Outside the Premises:
The appellant, a multinational company, charged the second respondent and other striking workmen with misconduct for acts committed outside the factory premises. The Labour Court held that the company could not charge-sheet the workmen for misconduct committed outside the establishment's premises or its vicinity. The High Court upheld this decision, emphasizing that the misconduct must occur within the premises or vicinity to be punishable under Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22.

2. Interpretation of Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22:
The central issue was whether the alleged misconduct fell within Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of S.O. 22. Clause 10 includes acts like drunkenness, fighting, and disorderly behavior committed within the premises or vicinity. Clause 16 pertains to conduct endangering the safety of other workmen or company property, and Clause 30 deals with rudeness towards officers, employees, customers, and visitors. The Labour Court and High Court interpreted these clauses to mean that misconduct must occur within the premises or vicinity to be punishable. The Supreme Court affirmed this interpretation, emphasizing that the words "within the premises of the establishment or in the vicinity thereof" are limiting and must be strictly construed.

3. Jurisdiction and Scope of Labour Court and High Court in Interpreting Standing Orders:
The Labour Court's jurisdiction under Section 11-C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, was invoked to interpret the standing orders. The Labour Court framed eight issues, focusing on whether the misconduct occurred within the premises or vicinity. The High Court, in its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227, reviewed the Labour Court's interpretation and upheld it. The Supreme Court confined itself to determining whether the misconduct as alleged fell within the specified clauses of S.O. 22, excluding hypothetical scenarios.

4. Applicability of Misconduct Provisions in Standing Order 22:
The Supreme Court examined whether the alleged misconduct, even if true, would fall within Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of S.O. 22. The Court emphasized that the purpose of standing orders is to regulate behavior within the premises or vicinity to ensure peaceful industrial activity. The Court rejected the argument that misconduct could be punished irrespective of where it occurred, stating that such an interpretation would grant the employer undue power beyond the workplace. The Court also noted that penal provisions must be strictly construed, and the words of limitation in Clause 10 must be given due effect.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court and High Court's interpretation that Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22 limit punishable misconduct to acts committed within the premises or vicinity. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellant company could not take disciplinary action for misconduct occurring outside these areas. The judgment reinforces the principle of strict construction of penal provisions in standing orders and the limited jurisdiction of employers over employee behavior outside the workplace. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000.