:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 665 OF 2008 Cummins India Ltd. ..Petitioner Vs. Kirloskar Cummins Employees Union ..Respondent Mr. Neel Helekar i/by M/s. Haresh Mehta and Co. for petitioner. Ms. Seema Sarnaik for respondent. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 04, 2008. Date : February 04, 2008. Date : February 04, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Helekar the learned counsel for the petitioner-company. An interlocutory order passed by the learned Member of the Industrial Court at Pune on 4/12/2007 allowing application filed under Section 30(2) of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 (for short the Act) in Complaint (ULP) No. 242 of 2007 has been impugned in this petition and, therefore, I am treating this petition under Article 227 of the :2: Constitution. 2. On 8/10/2007 one employee by name Shri Jayant Gulabrao Shinde, claimed to be a member of the respondent-Union, was charge-sheeted by the petitioner-company purportedly under Clause 24(l) of the Model Standing Orders as applicable to the workmen doing manual and technical work and the said Clause reads as under:- "24(l) commission of any act subversive of discipline or good behaviour on the premises of the establishment." 3. Subsequently the employer initiated disciplinary inquiry and, therefore, the charge-sheet as well as inquiry initiated came to be challenged by the respondent-Union by filing Complaint (ULP) No. 242 of 2007. The substantial reliefs prayed in the said complaint in Clauses (a) to (d) read as under:- :3: (a) It be declared that the respondent has committed unfair labour practice as alleged and they may be directed to cease the same. (b) The respondent be restrained from taking any disciplinary action on the basis of the charge-sheet dated 8/10/2007 against Shri jayant G. Shinde. (c) The respondent be directed to grant him Sp. Leave with wages for 6/10/07 and 8/10/07. (d) The respondent be directed to pay compensation of Rs.100000/- to Shri Shinde. 4. In the said complaint an application for interim relief under Section 30(2) of the Act was filed and it was submitted that prima facie the company did not have the right to take cognizance and issue a charge-sheet under the Model Standing Orders :4: for an incident which had occurred outside and not connected with any employee. After hearing both the parties the said application came to be allowed by the impugned order as noted hereinabove. 5. One of the grounds submitted before the Industrial Court opposing the application for interim relief was that if the application would be allowed, it would amount to granting final relief and in any case the employer has a right to initiate disciplinary proceedings against an erring employee under the Model Standing Orders and such a right cannot be either suspended or taken away by the Industrial Court. While adopting the same arguments, Mr. Helekar also has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Munchandani Electrical and Radio Industries Ltd. vs. Its Workmen [1975 (30) F.L.R. 169]. . It is clear that in the case of Munchandani (Supra) the incident of assault outside the factory premises was related to and/or connected with the :5: incident that had taken place in the factory premises. Whereas in the instant case it is stated in the charge-sheet that while the charge-sheeted workman was on duty in the second shift on 28/9/2007 the police had arrived at the factory gate and thereafter he was taken in custody by the police on an alleged office of theft in the sum of Rs.3030/-. It was further pointed out that a couple was going on a two wheeler in the night and the charge-sheeted employee had tried to snatch the purse of the lady and when the husband started chasing him, the charge-sheeted employee had fled away with the purse. FIR No.362 of 2007 was registered with the Vishrambaug Police Station, Pune City on 28/9/2007. 6. Having regards to the language of Clause 24(l) of the Model Standing Orders, as reproduced hereinabove, and the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Munchandani (Supra), I am satisfied that the reasoning set out by the Industrial Court for a prima facie finding that the alleged incident which is the subject matter of CR No.362 of 2007 stated to :6: be registered with Vishrambaug Police Station did not fall within the ambit of Clause 24(l) of the Model Standing Orders and, therefore, the employer could not have issued a charge-sheet. 7. Hence no interference is called for in the impugned order under Article 227 of the Constitution. The petition is rejected summarily. (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)