LexGLAXO LABORATORIES versus THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT MEERUT & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
B c E F G H GLAXO LABORATORiES ~. THE 'PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR ,COURT MEERUT & ORS. October 6, 1983 (D. A. DESAI, 0. CHINNAPPA.REDOY AND A. VARADARAJAN, JJ.] • . Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946-Constr.uction of Standing Orders-Standing orders prvviding /of imposition of penalty on proof of ·'misconduct' should be construed strictly like penal Statutes . . '~ I The appellant-con1pany charges.heeted the.second respondent and some of his striking co-workmen for violation of els. IO, 16 and 30 of Standing Order 22 on the allegation that they had b_oard\!d a bus carryjng 'loyal workmen' and manhandled them at different place'! during the journey. Clause 10 Qf S.O. 22 provided that "drunkenness, fighting, indecent or diSorderly behaviour use.of abusive langua8:e, wrongfully interfering with the work of other employees or . conduct likely to cause a breach of the pc.ace or conduct endangering the life or safety of any other person, assault or threat of assault, any act subversive of discipline and efficiency and aily act involving moral turpitude, committ~d within the premises of the establishment, or in the vicinity thereof". \\OUld be treated as misconduct. Standirlg qrder 23 prescribed punishment for misconduct. · The second respondent approached the Labour Court under . s.11-C of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for a correct interpretatioD of the Standing Ordei-. The Labour Court held that the acts of misconduct were not cover'ed by the .provisions of _the S~nding Order as they were 3.Ueged to have been committed outside the premises of the establishment , and not in its vicinity. The High Court upheld the construction put by the Labour Court and dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant. : Counsel f~r appellant contended that if the motivation for committing an act of misconduCt any-where is to have an adverse eft'eCt on the peaceful working Or the establishment, then, irre~pective of the fact where the mis- conduct is committed, it should be deemed to have been committed within the premises of the establiShment or in its vicinity; and, further, that since the. expression 'misconduct' under S.0.23 is not qua1ified as the one set outjn S.0.22, any other act of on1ission or coinmission which would per se-be mis- conduct would be puai~hable under S.0. 23 irrespective of the fact whether it fin~s its enumeration in s.o._ 22 or not. JI. -~ > 'T .. \. \ · .. -- ~~ ' ' \ / ' GLAXO I.As. V. LABOUR coURT 231 . .. Dismissing the appeal, HELD : The Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act; 1946 · confers the power to prescribe conditions of service of workmen - on tbe . employer to enable him to peacefully carry on his industrial activity and he haS jurisdiction to regti1ate the behaviour of workmen within the premises of hiS . establishment or in itS vicinity. This being the larger objective behind issue of certified Standing Orders, the only construction o'ne can put on ct.10 is th3t the various acts of miscandcct set out therein would be misconduct for 'the purpose of S.0.22 and punishable ufider S.0.23, if committed within the premises of the establishment or in the vicinity thereof. What constitutes-establishment or its vicinity would depend upon the facts and circumstances of each case.· · . (240 D-E; H; 241 A-BJ (b) Standing.Order 22 is a penal staiute i~ the sense that it provide! for imposition ·or penalty On proof of misconduct. -Foi a penalfY to bC imposC-d it must be quite cleat that.the case falls v.ithin both the, letter and the spirit of the statute. It is a general rUte that penal enactments are to be coastrued strictly- and not extended beyond their clear mcan_ing. If the·· expression- "committed within the premises of the Cstablishment oi- in the viciniry thereof' contained in cl 10 is given a wide construction so ai to mak_e thC clause itself meaningles!. an.-f redundant. the penal statute would become so_ vague and would be far beyond the requirement of the situation as to make it a \\1eapoo, of torture. If miscoadut. committed anywhere, irrespecu"e ·of. the tlln~-Place content where and when· it is committed, is to be comprChended i.1 cI.10 merely because it has some remotCimpact on the peaceful atmOsphere in the establishment, there would be no justification for using the words "committed withiri the premises of the establishment or in the vicinity -thereof' ill cl.IO. _These arc- "
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.