JUDGMENT : ( 1. ) BY this petition the petitioner challenges the orders annexes P2 and P3, respectively passed by the Labour court and Industrial Court, on 3/5/1983 and 29/5/1985. ( 2. ) PETITIONER is the manager of the factory where respondent 1 was employed at the material point and was working as rollman-cum-mukaddim. Sri N. P. Bhatnagar is an electrical Engineer and Manager of the factory and was overall in charge of the works. On 18/12/1978, at or about 10. 45 a. m. , sri Bhatnagar directed a worker Ramadhar to do a particular job and one worker Lotu kesari of grinding section, was also directed by him to help Ramadhar. At 11. 15 a. m. when Sri Bhatnagar was proceeding to rolls section of the factory, it is alleged that respondent 1 stopped him and started showering dirty and filthy abuses of mother and sister upon him and also threw threats of life and limb. The threat was that at noon time when he is at the gate Sri Bhatnagar will be beaten badly. It is also alleged that respondent 1, to execute his threat, called some persons of labour union, friendly to him, to be present at the gate at 2. 30 p. m. Sri Bhatnagar immediately reported the incident to his superior officer. At 2 30 p. m. respondent 1 was allegedly seen at the gate with some persons. Respondent 1 was subsequently charge sheeted for his misconduct and a regular departmental enquiry was held under rule 12 (4) of Madhya Pradesh industrial Employment (Standing Orders)Rules, 1963. The inquiry officer found respondent 1 guilty of disorderly conduct and held that he has committed major misconduct during his employment. According to the enquiry officer respondent 1 was found to be guilty of major misconduct covered by the standard standing order 12 (1) (f ). Respondent 1 when found guilty, by way of punishment he was dismissed from employ-ment in accordance with the provisions of rule 12 (3) (b) (vi ). ( 3. ) AGGRIEVED by this dismissal order respondent 1 filed an application under S. 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations act of 1960, before respondent 2, the Labour court of Bhopal and claimed, inter alia, his reinstatement with back-wages. Petitioner on notice appeared before respondent 2 and contested the proceedings and raised several objections. ( 3. ) AGGRIEVED by this dismissal order respondent 1 filed an application under S. 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations act of 1960, before respondent 2, the Labour court of Bhopal and claimed, inter alia, his reinstatement with back-wages. Petitioner on notice appeared before respondent 2 and contested the proceedings and raised several objections. Respondent 2 after concluding the hearing, handed over its judgments (annexure P2 ). Findings as recorded by respondent 2 are summarised below : (i) Application of respondent 1 under sec. 31 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial relations Act was maintainable. (ii) The enquiry conducted by the inquiry officer of the factory was neither illegal nor improper. (iii) As the departmental enquiry was found to be legal and proper it is now not necessary to state again that charges of misconduct were found proved on merits against respondent I. (iv) As relief the respondent 1 was directed to be reinstated with half back-wages. ( 4. ) PETITIONER, by way of appeal, after being aggrieved by the judgment of respondent 2, profaned an appeal before the Industrial court of Madhya Pradesh, Indore, which was dismissed by judgment annexure P3. In this judgment findings of respondent 2 were confirmed and the appeal of the petitioner was dismissed. In annexure P3 it was observed that departmental enquiry cannot be set aside because most of the facts alleged were admitted by respondent 1. In Para. 7 of the impugned judgment, respondent 3, accepted the finding of major misconduct on the part of respondent 1, to be correct and concluded that filthy abuses of mother and sister were hurled at sri Bhatnagar by respondent 1 and evidence in this regard, given during enquiry, is reliable. In Para. 8 of annexure P3 the industrial Court concluded that the latter part of the incident, i. e. , calling persons at the gate at 2. 30 p. m. by respondent 1 is also reliable but the persons called were union workers and res-pondent 1 was himself a labour union leader. In Para. 9 of the impugned judgment, respondent 3 concluded that filthy abuses and threats were hurled by respondent in the heat of passion. The misconduct on the part of respondent 1 was personal misconduct not affecting the employees of the factory in general. In Para. 9 of the impugned judgment, respondent 3 concluded that filthy abuses and threats were hurled by respondent in the heat of passion. The misconduct on the part of respondent 1 was personal misconduct not affecting the employees of the factory in general. It further concluded that punishment of dismissal for this misconduct was harsh and oppressive to respondent 1, hence alteration in this punishment by respondent p2 was justifiable. Petitioner, therefore, having no remedy, now challenges annexures p2 and P3, under Arts. 226 and 227 of the constitution. ( 5. ) WE are not at all impressed by the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the factory was not employing more than 100 workers and hence the provisions of Madhya Pradesh Industrial relations Act, 1960, are not attracted. Respondents 2 and 3, both have negatived this contention and both have concluded that from evidence on record it is proved on facts that this factory is governed by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial relations Act. We, therefore, reject this contention of the petitioner. ( 6. ) MADHYA Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1961, received the assent of the President on 9 July 1961, and was published in the Madhya Pradesh Gazette on 28 July 1961. This Act was passed for providing rules defining with sufficient precision in certain matters dealing with the conditions of employees in industrial undertaking in the State of Madhya Pradesh. Under this Act, Madhya Pradesh Government, under S. 21 (2) of the Act, framed rules called standard Standing Orders. These standing orders came into force from 22 March. These orders provide classification of employees, their tickets, recruitment, manner of intimating the employees, period and hours of work, holidays, pay, days - wage rates, shift working, attendance and late coming, leave and holidays, provisions for requirement to enter premises by certain dates and liability to search, closures, temporary stoppages and lay off and termination of employment and notice thereof to be given to employer and employee. Rule 12 (1) dealt with disciplinary action for major misconduct and sub-rule (2) deals with minor misconduct. Sub-rule i (b) deals with the punishment for major misconduct and prescribes that following punishment may be awarded to the delinquent employees. They are respectively, censure, fine, suspension for 4 days or 7 days, withholding increment for one year, demotion or dismissal. Rule 12 (1) dealt with disciplinary action for major misconduct and sub-rule (2) deals with minor misconduct. Sub-rule i (b) deals with the punishment for major misconduct and prescribes that following punishment may be awarded to the delinquent employees. They are respectively, censure, fine, suspension for 4 days or 7 days, withholding increment for one year, demotion or dismissal. Sub-rule (4) of rule 12 prescribes the procedure for domestic enquiry before punishment is awarded to delinquent employee. Provisions in S. 13 deal with the manner and means in which an employee can get redress against unfair treatment or wrongful eviction by employer. ( 7. ) THESE rules govern all the industrial undertakings in the State of Madhya Pradesh. They have been framed with the intent that the employers and the employees of the undertakings may act in the ways and means provided in these rules. Section 12 of the madhya Pradesh Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Rules, 1963, is. for convenience being quoted : " 12. Disciplinary action for misconduct. (1) The following acts or omissions on the part of an employee shall amount to a major misconduct, (a) Conviction by a Court of law for an offence involving moral turpitude. (b) Theft, fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the undertaking. (c) Taking or giving bribe or any illegal gratification. (d) Wilful disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of a superior involving safety of any person or property or other matter having an adverse effect upon the work or wages of another employee. (d) Wilful disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of a superior involving safety of any person or property. (e) Gambling within the premises of the undertaking. (f) Drunkenness, riotous or disorderly behaviour, during working hours at the undertaking or conduct endangering the life or safety of any person, intimidation, physical duress or any act subversive of discipline ; " The proved major misconduct of respondent is clearly covered by provisions of 12 (f) of the rules. The conduct of respondent i was riotous and disorderly behaviour during working hours at the undertaking. Respondent 1 was also found guilty of the conduct endangering the life and safety of Sri bhatnagar. The misconduct of respondent 1 during working hours in the undertaking was also subversive of discipline. These concurrent findings are of domestic enquiry, annexures P2 and P3. The conduct of respondent i was riotous and disorderly behaviour during working hours at the undertaking. Respondent 1 was also found guilty of the conduct endangering the life and safety of Sri bhatnagar. The misconduct of respondent 1 during working hours in the undertaking was also subversive of discipline. These concurrent findings are of domestic enquiry, annexures P2 and P3. The punishment for major misconduct is provided in rule 12 (3) (b ). According to this provision the delinquent employee, if found guilty of major misconduct, can be punished either with censure, fine, suspension for 4 days or 7 days, withholding of increment for one year, demotion or dismissal. The enquiry officer in the facts and circumstances of the case chose to impose a penalty of dismissal. In rule 12 (3) (c) it is provided that while awarding punishment the management shall take into account the gravity of the misconduct, the previous record of employee, if any, and any other extenuating or aggravating circumstances. To hurl abuses which are filthy, during working hours, upon the manager of the factory, by an employee, is certainly an aggravating circumstance and this major misconduct can easily be termed as very grave. Such misconduct on the part of respondent, who was a mukaddam and in charge of a section of the factory, was definitely not a personal misconduct but was a major misconduct committed in the presence of others. It was clearly a public misconduct and the enquiry officer was justified in taking a serious view of the matter. Major misconduct on the part of an employee is likely to endanger industrial peace and discipline. ( 8. ) INDUSTRIAL discipline is as vital and important in a factory as production is because both are interlinked. Indiscipline in an industry and that too by a section in charge is likely to give way to labour indiscipline and may retard the growth and production of an industry which is national loss. Discipline in a factory can be maintained only when the acts of indiscipline are viewed gravely and appropriate and proportionate punishment is meted out to the delinquent. Soft glove treatment to the delinquents, either in a factory or in an educational institution, is likely to result in chaos, ultimately harming and damaging beyond repair the national discipline. That will result in tearing away the soft fibres of character. Soft glove treatment to the delinquents, either in a factory or in an educational institution, is likely to result in chaos, ultimately harming and damaging beyond repair the national discipline. That will result in tearing away the soft fibres of character. We have no hesitation in concluding that the punishment awarded to respondent 1 by the domestic enquiry was in accordance with the provisions of the rules. Reinstatement with half back wages is not the punishment which can be awarded under rule 12 (3) (b) if the delinquent is found guilty. Respondents 2 and 3 have gone beyond the provisions of the rules, when though like domestic enquiry they found respondent guilty of major misconduct yet awarded the punishment which is not provided in rule 12 (3) (b ). Respondent 3 has gone a step further than respondent 2 and erroneously held that the act of indiscipline was not a public misconduct. Filthy abuses of mother and sister hurled by an employee upon the manager of the factory, during working hours, in presence of other employees can never be termed as private misconduct. In rule 12 no such term finds place as "private misconduct" or "public misconduct. " According to rules a misconduct can be major or minor but not private or public. A serious view should have been taken by respondents 2 and 3 in their judgments once they arrived at the conclusion that respondent 1 was guilty of major misconduct. There was no ground available to them to alter the punishment awarded by the enquiry officer, when rule 12 does not provide for a punishment, which they chose to impose, after altering the sentence imposed by the inquiry officer. Respondents 2 and 3 cannot substitute the provisions of rules with their own views. Once the rules are framed they have to be followed in word and spirit. The specific provisions of rules can neither be substituted nor subverted. ( 9. ) THE contention of the learned counsel for respondent 1, that respondents 2 and 3 could interfere with the nature of punishment imposed upon respondent 1 because they had power to do so under Sec. 107a of the madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act, 1960, deserves outright rejection because sec. 107a of the Act was incorporated by amendment published in Madhya pradesh Rajpatra on 13 January 1982. 107a of the Act was incorporated by amendment published in Madhya pradesh Rajpatra on 13 January 1982. The major misconduct in this case was committed on 18 December 1978, and the provisions of s. 107a cannot be applied retrospectively. ( 10. ) IN the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. Annexes P2 and P3 passed respectively by respondents 2 and 3 are quashed and the punishment of dismissal imposed by the domestic enquiry upon res respondent is maintained. There shall be no order as to costs. Security amount, if any, shall be refunded.