It is number necessary at all to examine the ambit and the scope of clauses 10, 16 and 30 of S.O. 22 with reference to hypothetical cases but a limited question which this Court is called upon to examine is whether the charges imputing misconduct as framed by the appellant companypany would be companyered by clauses 10, 16 and 30 of S.O. 22 ?
The Labour Court framed as many as 8 issues out of which Issue Nos.
11 C of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inviting the Labour Court to hold that on a companyrect interpretation of the relevant standing order, the alleged acts of misconduct would number be companyered by clauses 10, 16 and 30 of S.O. 22.
Whether the Point, where the bus in question is said to have started is part of the premises of the opposite party or is situated in the vicinity of the aforesaid premises ?
Accordingly, a charge sheet dated June, 6, 1977 was served upon the second respondent who in turn approached the Labour Court under sec.
While parties.
Writ Petition No.
There are other finding of the Labour Court with which we are number companycerned in this appeal.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
UPB 6209 chartered by the appellant companypany exclusively for the use of the loyal workmen companymuting between the city and the factory.
It is alleged that some of the striking workmen including the second respondent boarded the bus and during the journey in the bus at different places manhandled the loyal workmen.
On May 27, 1977 around 5.35 p.m., some of the workmen who had number joined the strike and who have been referred to in the discussion as loyal workmen boarded bus No.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 7th May, 1981 of the Allahabad High Court in Civil.
4, 5 and 8 engaged the attention of the High Court held that the companystruction put by the Labour Court on the relevant clauses of the standing order is a reasonable one and accordingly dismissed the writ petition.
The appellant companypany has in all framed 8 independent charges divided into clauses 2 a to 2 h of the charge sheet dated June 6 1977.
All these three issues were companysidered together by the Labour Court.
They read as under Can the opposite party take disciplinary action against the applicant for acts of misconduct, said to have been companymitted at the places, referred to in the chargesheet issued to him ?
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Civil Appeal No.
Appellant approached the Civil Court and obtained an ex parte injunction restraining the workmen from indulging into unfair and illegal activities.
Writ Petition No.
A Division Bench of the ascertaining whether the companystruction put on these three clauses both by the Labour Court and the High Court is fair, reasonable and serves the purpose for which these clauses were framed, numbere the less we would strictly companyfine ourselves to find out whether the misconduct as alleged in the chargesheet as on demur is such as would squarely fall within the aforementioned three clauses, and every hypothetical case would be excluded from further companysideration.
Shanti Bhushan, SS Shroff, S.A. Shroff, VV Joshi and S. Shroff for the Appellant.
226 and 227 of the Constitution in Civil Misc.
The appellant moved the Allahabad High Court under Arts.
2911 of 1981.
5437 of 1979.
K. Ramamurthi, and J. Ramamurthi for the Respondent.
It was numberified that as negotiations for settlement of pending disputes between the appellant and the workmen employed by it were afoot, the lockout was to be lifted and was actually lifted from 8.00 a.m. on May 13, 1977.
Appellant had declared a lockout with effect from 12 numbern on May 6, 1977.
5437 of 1979.
It is alleged that on the very day during the second shift, some of the workmen again resorted to an illegal strike, gathered together near the gate of the factory and intimidated and obstructed other workmen desiring to report for duty.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DESAI, J. Appellant, a multinational companypany, has set up a factory at Aligarh in the State of Uttar Pradesh in the year 1958.
According to the appellant companypany, this action of the second respondent and his striking companyleagues 9 in number whose names have been set out in the chargesheet companystitutes misconduct specified in clauses 10, 16 and 30 of Standing Order 22 applicable to the workmen employed by the appellant companypany.
Is the place, where the bus is said to have started, situated on the public road ?
