JUDGMENT : R.A. Jahagirdar, J. 1. The facts in all these petitions are common and they should be mentioned before one proceeds to consider the questions arising in them separately. Rajesh Dyeing and Bleaching Works Private Limited, hereinafter referred to as "the company'", is engaged in the business of, as its name suggests, textile processing. Two workers, Saved Noor Razvi and Maniram Anantoo, were in the employment of the company. They were charged with acts of misconduct constituting (1) riotous and disorderly behaviour on the premises of the Undertaking and (2) commission of an act subversive of discipline and good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. They were charged with these acts of misconduct on the basis of an incident which took place on 22nd of May 1975 when both the workers were on duty. 2. It was the case of the company that at the time and on the day aforesaid Syed Noor Razvi was mixing a tablet containing narcotic substance with tobacco when the Security Officer, one Vijay Sahani, seized the same and put it in his pocket. Maniram, the other worker, grabbed the Security Officer and made an attempt to forcibly take out the tablet from his pant-pocket. The Security Officer came to the office of the factory for the purpose of reporting the incident when Sayed Noor Razvi accosted him in the office and asked him to either return the tablet or to pay him Re. 1 being the cost of that tablet. On the refusal of the Security Officer to return the tablet Sayed Noor Razvi abused the Security Officer in filthy language and threatened him with physical assault outside the factory premises. 3. Pursuant to the charge-sheets issued to the two workmen, inquiries were held and the inquiry officer found that the charges levelled against the workmen were proved on the basis of the evidence which was led before him. On the basis of the finding recorded by the inquiry officer both the workmen were dismissed by the company by the order dated 23rd June, 1975. 4. Sayed Noor Razvi filed an application, being Application (LCB) No. 620 of 1975, while Maniram Anantoo filed Application (LCB) 619 of 1975 in the 5th Labour Court at Bombay u/s 78 read with Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. 4. Sayed Noor Razvi filed an application, being Application (LCB) No. 620 of 1975, while Maniram Anantoo filed Application (LCB) 619 of 1975 in the 5th Labour Court at Bombay u/s 78 read with Section 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. By the said applications the two workmen challenged the orders of their dismissal from service as illegal and improper and prayed that the company be directed to reinstate them with continuity of service and full back wages. The Labour Court found that the inquiry was proper and legal and. allowed the parties to lead evidence on the other issues, which was done. By its judgment and order dated 18th of January 1980 the Labour Court dismissed Application (LCB) No. 620 of 1975. While doing so the Labour Court accepted the findings of the inquiry officer, which findings were not displaced by any evidence led on behalf of the workmen, that Sayed Noor Razvi was mixing some narcotic substance with tobacco which was seized by the Security Officer Sahani. The attempt of the other workman Maniram to retrieve it failed. There after Saved asked the Security Officer to return the substance or to pay him Re.1 being the cost of the substance seized. On the Security Officer refusing to do so Sayed abused him and also threatened him with injury to his person outside the factory premises. 5. While considering the submissions on behalf of the workmen that the punishment of dismissal awarded to them was harsh and disproportionate to the misconduct committed by them, the learned Judge of the Labour Court noticed that both the charges proved against the workmen at the inquiry were of a serious nature and it would not be proper to take a lenient view. Therefore he thought that no interference was called for in the order of dismissal. Accordingly he dismissed the applications by his order dated 18th January 1980. 6. In the case of the other workman Maniram, the finding was much more serious. The inquiry officer had held him guilty of both the charges levelled against him. It was also found by the enquiry officer that Maniram was found smoking charas on duty at 9.30 a.m. This finding was not shown to be erroneous on behalf of the workman in the proceedings pursuant to his Application (LCB) No. 619 of 1975. The inquiry officer had held him guilty of both the charges levelled against him. It was also found by the enquiry officer that Maniram was found smoking charas on duty at 9.30 a.m. This finding was not shown to be erroneous on behalf of the workman in the proceedings pursuant to his Application (LCB) No. 619 of 1975. The learned Judge of the Labour Court had no difficulty in endorsing this finding of the inquiry officer. Therefore the learned Judge thought in this case also that no interference with the quantum of punishment was called for because the order of dismissal could not be regarded as improper and disproportionate looking to the nature of the misconduct proved to have been committed by Maniram. 7. Sayed Noor Razvi preferred an appeal, being Appeal (IC) No. 18 of 1980 while Maniram preferred Appeal-(IC) No. 19 of 1980. Both these appeals were heard and disposed of by the Industrial Court, Maharashtra, Bombay, by a common judgment and order dated 29th of September 1980. The learned President of the Industrial Court did not disturb the findings of fact recorded by the inquiry officer and confirmed by the Labour Court. Submissions were, however, made on behalf of the workmen, which submissions have been mentioned in paragraph 23 of his judgment. The contention that the inquiry was not properly conducted was negatived. In fact the other contentions raised on behalf of the workmen were also negatived. Ultimately, towards the end of paragraph 46 of his judgment the learned president of the Industrial Court records that he was unable to accept the contentions advanced on behalf of the workmen. Similarly he also held that the findings recorded by the inquiry officer and confirmed by the Labour Court were correct and were not liable to be interfered with in the appeals before him. Even the finding regarding the seizure of a drug like charas from the workmen was left totally intact by the Industrial Court. Therefore, in paragraph 53 of his judgment the learned President of the Industrial Court says : "...all the arguments discussed above have no substance and therefore, must be rejected." 8. The learned Advocate appearing for the workmen submitted before the Industrial Court that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. The learned President of the Industrial Court says that "here, the appellants are on somewhat stronger ground". The learned Advocate appearing for the workmen submitted before the Industrial Court that the punishment of dismissal was shockingly disproportionate to the nature of the misconduct. The learned President of the Industrial Court says that "here, the appellants are on somewhat stronger ground". According to the learned President of the Industrial Court, the evidence showed that the appellants were in possession of charas and were about to smoke, but had not actually started smoking. He, therefore, held that the misconduct could not be said to be so grave as to warrant punishment of dismissal. The learned President of the. Industrial Court also thought that the workers had not actually started smoking and their behaviour also was not riotous or disorderly. Proceeding further the learned President of the Industrial Court says: "All that they did was to try to snatch away the charas pill from the security officer Shri Sahani and Shri Saved Noor gave him some threats, Actually it does not appear that any violence was used by them." With these observations, on which I will have to make some comments, the learned President of the Industrial Court proceeded to modify the punishment awarded by the company and confirmed by the Labour Court below him. The lesser punishment of reinstatement but with half back wages was awarded to the workmen. The company has preferred writ Petition No. 1241 of 1980 against the order passed in Appeal (IC) No. 18 of 1980 and Writ Petition No. 1242 of 1980 against the order in Appeal (IC) No. 19 of 1980. Sayed Noor Razvi, the appellant in Appeal (IC) No. 18 of 1980 in the Court below, has preferred Writ Petition No. 734 of 1981 challenging the refusal of the Industrial Court to give him full back wages while ordering reinstatement. This challenge naturally includes challenge to the finding recorded by the two Courts below that he, like the other co-workman, was guilty of the acts of misconduct levelled against him. 9. All these petitions arising out of the same incident and having common questions of law and fact are being disposed of by this common judgment. Mr. Damania, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the two petitions on behalf of the company, has taken me through the judgments of the two Courts below and other necessary material which forms part of the record. Mr. Damania, the learned Advocate appearing in support of the two petitions on behalf of the company, has taken me through the judgments of the two Courts below and other necessary material which forms part of the record. After going through the same and especially after reading paragraphs 54 to 56 of the judgment of the industrial Court I am constrained to agree with the criticism made by Mr. Damania that the Industrial Court has committed not only errors of law but has misdirected itself on the findings which have been recorded by the Court below it as well as the inquiry officer. I am also inclined to accept the criticism that the Industrial Court was in grievous error in holding, differing from the Labour Court, that the acts of misconduct proved against the workmen concerned were not serious as to merit the distinction of riotous or disorderly behaviour. In the earlier paragraphs of this judgment sufficient details of the acts of misconduct with which the workmen were charged have been given. Also have been given sufficient details of the findings of the inquiry officer, which have not been proved to be wrong by the workmen concerned in the proceedings before the Labour Court. From the evidence which has commended itself both to the inquiry officer and to the Labour Court it has been sufficiently well established that at 9.30 a.m. on 22nd of May 1975 Sayed Noor Razvi was mixing some narcotic substance with tobacco which was seized by the security officer from whom he tried to retrieve it. On his failure to do so he not only abused the security officer but also threatened him with injury to his person outside the factory premises. Similarly it was found by the Inquiry Officer, which finding has not been disturbed by the Labour Court nor by the Industrial Court, that Maniram was found smoking charas during his working hours and when the charas was seized by the security officer he assaulted him in the presence of the time keeper and also abused and threatened him. One, therefore, fails to understand how the learned President of the Industrial Court could accept a submission made on behalf of the workmen that they had not actually started smoking. One, therefore, fails to understand how the learned President of the Industrial Court could accept a submission made on behalf of the workmen that they had not actually started smoking. It is true that Sayed was not found actually smoking, but evidence more convincing than is necessary clearly establishes that Maniram was smoking and Sayed was making preparation for smoking charas during working hours on the factory premises. The Industrial Court misdirected itself by holding that the workmen were not smoking when actually one of them at least was found smoking charas. The Industrial Court also misdirected that this act could not be so grave as to warrant the punishment of dismissal. 10. It is also impossible to comprehend the reasons given in paragraph 55 of the judgment of the Industrial Court that abusing and assaulting a security officer, who has done his duty in preventing the two workmen from their nefarious activities on the premises of employment, does not amount to riotous or disorderly behaviour. The Industrial Court says that "all that they did was to try to snatch away the charas pill from the security officer Shri Sabani and Shri Sayed Noor gave him some threats". The Industrial Court seems to have treated the matter as some incident between two strangers meeting on the road. It should be borne in mind that the two workmen were having in their possession a drug like charas and when they were deprived of its possession they tried to assault the security officer who had sized it. They also gave threats to the security officer. I do not see how the reasoning of the Industrial Court that there was absence of violence and the order of dismissal need not be imposed can be appreciated. 11. It is true that the Labour Court and the Industrial Court have jurisdiction to examine whether the punishment awarded to the workman concerned is disproportionate to the misconduct proved to have been committed by them. The acts of misconduct levelled against the workmen and proved in the instant case is so grave that it could not legitimately be inferred that the order of dismissal was disproportionate to the said acts of misconduct. There are certain acts of misconduct which normally can never be condoned. The acts of misconduct levelled against the workmen and proved in the instant case is so grave that it could not legitimately be inferred that the order of dismissal was disproportionate to the said acts of misconduct. There are certain acts of misconduct which normally can never be condoned. A watchman sleeping on duty, a cashier entrusted with the money embezzling the same, a petrol station attendant smoking while on duty" these are some only of the offences which cannot be treated leniently. If such acts of misconduct are visited upon with the punishment of dismissal from service, I do not see how on any legitimate view it could be said that the orders of dismissal in such cases would be disproportionate to the nature of the offence proved against the person concerned. Here is a case where two workmen were found in- possession of charas, a drug which has now become the subject-matter of international concern. When deprived of that they not only made an attempt to retrieve it but in fact gave threats to the security officer that they would appropriately deal with him outside the factory premises. An act of misconduct need not be riotous but it can still be disorderly. What is riotous necessarily includes what is disorderly while what is disorderly need not necessarily be riotous. Therefore when the workmen concerned were charged with riotous and disorderly behaviour in the premises of the company, it was sufficient for the company to prove that their act amounted to at least disorderly behaviour. That their conduct was disorderly is sufficiently well proved. Similarly, to assault a security officer while on duty or to give him threat that he would be dealt with because he did not accede to the illegal demand of the workmen concerned to return the seized contraband is nothing but an act subversive of discipline and good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. It is not suggested, and indeed it could not be, that both these acts were not on the premises of the Company. 12. Mr. Menon appearing for the workmen has tried to support the order of the Industrial Court on the question of the Industrial Court's interference with the quantum of punishment. It is not suggested, and indeed it could not be, that both these acts were not on the premises of the Company. 12. Mr. Menon appearing for the workmen has tried to support the order of the Industrial Court on the question of the Industrial Court's interference with the quantum of punishment. He has referred me to Ashok Pandurang Taware v. S.D. Rane, Presiding Officer a judgment of Pendse J. delivered on 28th September 1981 in Miscellaneous Petition No. 782 of 1978 1982 (45) F.L.R. 150. I have with his assistance gone through the said judgment and I find that case disclosed what were regarded by Pendse J. as acts of misconduct which were comparatively of very less gravity. The charges levelled against the workman in that case were that (1) on April 24, 1974 the workman lifted a chair and banged it on the floor with the result that it broke; (2) the workman was, on 25th September 1974, found sleeping in the drawing room from 2.45 to 3.10 p.m. and (3) on 9th of December 1974 he was found taking lunch outside the lunch hours. On these facts Pendse J. found that the order of dismissal was not justified. In my opinion, the facts in that case bear absolutely no comparison with the gravity of the offences with which the workmen in these cases were charged and have been found guilty. 13. Reference was also made to Ramakant Misra v. State of U.P., a judgment of the Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No. 1531 of 1980 decided on 21st October 1982 by D.A. Desai J. (with Balakrishna Eradi J.) reported in Rama Kant Misra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh and Others,. It was pointed out by the Supreme Court in that case that it, was a well recognized principle of jurisprudence which permits penalty to be imposed for misconduct that the penalty must be commensurate with the gravity of the offence charged. On the facts before it the Supreme Court found that the delinquent workman was found to be guilty of using abusive language. The Supreme Court said that when it is said that the language discloses a threatening posture it was the subjective conclusion or the person who hears the language because voice modulation of each person in the society differs and indiscreet improper, abusive language may show lack of culture. The Supreme Court said that when it is said that the language discloses a threatening posture it was the subjective conclusion or the person who hears the language because voice modulation of each person in the society differs and indiscreet improper, abusive language may show lack of culture. The Supreme Court observed that "the use of such language on one occasion unconnected with any subsequent positive action and not preceded by any blameworthy conduct cannot permit an extreme penalty of dismissal from service". Here also I do not see any parallel between the facts and the reasoning given by the Supreme Court and the facts involved in the case before me. 14. Reliance placed by Mr. Menon upon Glaxo Laboratories (I) Ltd. Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut and Others, is, in my opinion, not justified looking to the question, which arises before me. The Supreme Court in Glaxo Laboratories' case held that unless an act of misconduct is specifically provided in the Standing Orders no workman could be punished for that particular act. It is not left to the management to decide, apart from what is mentioned in the list of the acts of misconduct in the Standing Orders, what could be the act of misconduct of a workman on each occasion. The facts of that case showed that certain workmen had assaulted fellow workers in public buses. The question before the Supreme Court was whether those acts were acts subversive of discipline committed within the premises of the establishment or in the vicinity thereof. On the facts before it the Supreme Court came to the conclusion that they were not acts committed within the precincts of the establishment or in the vicinity thereof. No such questions arise on the facts of the case before me. The acts with which the workmen were charged and of which they were found guilty were undoubtedly committed on the precincts of the premises of the company and during working hours. The acts complained of were highly serious in nature. 15. Despite this, however, Mr. Menon has emboldened himself to say that the possession of a narcotic could not be regarded as a misconduct. It has also been suggested by him that some property which belonged to the workmen was taken away by the security officer and the workmen had a right to retrieve the same from the security officer. 15. Despite this, however, Mr. Menon has emboldened himself to say that the possession of a narcotic could not be regarded as a misconduct. It has also been suggested by him that some property which belonged to the workmen was taken away by the security officer and the workmen had a right to retrieve the same from the security officer. I have not a moment's hesitation in rejecting both these contentions made by Mr. Menon. It would be a sad day if one holds that being in possession of a drug, possession of which is prohibited by the law of the land, is not an act subversive of good behaviour on the premises of the establishment. It will also be a sad day if one holds that when such a contraband is seized by a security officer the workman or workmen concerned either in exercise of private defence of his property or otherwise will be entitled to retrieve the same from the custody of the security officer. The contentions are wholly untenable. I have no hesitation in holding that possession of articles like drugs, charas or alcohol by workmen during working hours on the premises of employment can be safely regarded as an act subversive of discipline and good behaviour. 16. In the present case the conduct of the two workmen does not consist of merely possession. It extends to one workman attempting to smoke the drug and in the other case to actually smoking the drug. Worse still, the workmen proceeded to attempt to recover such contraband from an officer duly authorised to seize the same and on their failure in such attempt they gave him abuses and threats that he would meet with dire consequences after the working hours. But alas the Industrial Court took an unusually narrow view of the acts of misconduct partly because it missed some finding recorded by the inquiry officer and endorsed by the Labour Court. The Industrial Court also committed an error, which can be safely regarded as an error of law apparent on the face of the record, in holding that the attempt of the workmen to recover the contraband from the security officer was not disorderly. The Industrial Court also committed an error, which can be safely regarded as an error of law apparent on the face of the record, in holding that the attempt of the workmen to recover the contraband from the security officer was not disorderly. I have, therefore, no hesitation in holding that the order passed by the President of the Industrial Court in the two appeals before him is hopelessly wrong, discloses patent errors of law, misreads the evidence which had been accepted by the Labour Court below it and, therefore, is liable to be set aside. In the view which I have thus taken in Writ Petition Nos. 1241 and 1242 of 1980. Writ Petition No. 734 of 1981 will naturally have to be dismissed. 17. In the result, Writ Petition No. 1241 of 1980 is allowed. The order dated 29th September 1980 passed by the Industrial Court in Appeal (IC) No. 18 of 1980 is set aside. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a). 18. In Writ Petition No. 1242 of 1980 it has been brought to my notice that during the pendency of this petition the original workman Maniram Anantoo has died and his heirs and legal representatives have been brought on record. In view of this peculiar situation the order of the reinstatement cannot be executed at all. In view of the fact that the workman has expired I do not think it is necessary to interfere with the order of back wages which would, however, be now recoverable by the unfortunate widow and her children. Therefore though I confirm the finding of the Labour Court and would have set aside the order of the Industrial Court, in view of the peculiar facts consequent to the death of the workman concerned, I discharge the rule in this petition. 19. For reasons already mentioned above, rule in Writ Petition No. 734 of 1981 is discharged. There will be no order as to costs in any of these petitions.