DECISION This is an appeal against the order of the Labour Court ordering re--instatement of the respondent with all the back benefits with liberty to the Management to impose any other penalty other than the dismissal.
2. The respondent was in the permanent employment of the appellant. He was charge-sheeted on the allegation that he had asked his co-workers to throw the waste material on the floor instead of putting it in the bags, in contravention of the general order which had been issued. An inquiry was held. He was found guilty and dismissed from service after second show--cause notice. He served a grievance notice and approached the Labour Court.
3. The application was resisted and it was pleaded that the appellant was guilty of misconduct and was removed from service after due inquiry.
4. Evidence was tendered. On the assessment of the evidence the learned Presiding Officer agreed with the Management that proper inquiry was held, but he entertained the view that the charge levelled against the appellant did not amount to misconduct justifying dismissal and instead some other penalty could be imposed. Aggrieved by this, the present appeal had been filed.
5. On perusal of the record and proceedings and hearing the arguments I see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the learned Presiding Officer. The accusation which was levelled against the respondent fell under Standing Order No. 15 (ii) (a) which lays down that disregard or disobedience of rules or orders, amounts to acts or omissions. The learned counsel, however, pointed out that the accusation fell under Standing Order No. 15 (3) (a) as there was wilful insubordination and disobedience to the lawful and reasonable order of the superior and the penalty for which could be dismissed. I am unable to agree with the contention raised by the learned counsel. In my view the provision of law relied upon by the learned counsel refers to special orders whereas Standing Order No. 15 (1)(ii)(a) refers to general order. In the present case the allegation was that the workmen were required to place the waste material in the bags, but the respondent instead asked them to throw on floor. Thus the violation was not of al special order as envisaged by Standing Order No. 15(3) (a), but it was a general order falling under Standing Order No. 15 (1)(ii) (a). Therefore, although this act of the respondent could be punished but the punishment could be other than dismissal.
6. In result I maintain the order passed by the Labour Court and dismiss the appeal.