JUDGMENT U.C. Srivastava, J. - These two writ petitions are directed against the award given by the Labour Court answering the reference in favour of the employee and holding that the order of termination of services of the employee was not justified which was thus set aside with the direction that he may be reinstated within one month of the award becoming enforceable and awarding 75% back wages. In not awarding the entire back wages the Labour Court observed that unfortunately he is to blame himself for much of the bad blood which has developed between him and the management and, therefore, his conduct motivated by ideals which are not relevant, has been far from satisfactory in so far as it was sought, bordering on rudeness and with highly exaggerated sense of his duties and in these circumstances the ends of justice will be met if is awarded 75% back wages. The Scooters India Ltd., a Company incorporated under the Companies Act has preferred this writ petition against that part of the award by which he has been awarded the entire back wages. The writ petition filed by Scooters India Ltd. (Writ Petition No. 2355 of 1986) is being taken as the leading case. 2. The case of the workmen was that he was agitating for the improvement and welfare of workers and taking active part in the trade union activities and thereby invited the wrath of the employer and during the period of six months in 1981 upto July as many as five charge-sheets were given to him of which two were withdrawn and on remaining three action was taken against him and ultimately his services were terminated, while the case of the employers is that because of misconduct which persisted enquiries were held against him and he was found to be guilty and thereafter his services were terminated. The workman challenged the enquiry on the ground that opportunity to defend himself was not given and the enquiry was vitiated being also not fair and impartial. 3. The petitioner pleaded that opposite party No. 2, L. N. Tewari was employed as Telephone Mechanic on 6th October, 1976 and while he was on probation he was caught red-handed-punching the Time-Card of another workman and on that ground his services were terminated, but on account of assurance for good behaviour he was again employed and kept on probation. 3. The petitioner pleaded that opposite party No. 2, L. N. Tewari was employed as Telephone Mechanic on 6th October, 1976 and while he was on probation he was caught red-handed-punching the Time-Card of another workman and on that ground his services were terminated, but on account of assurance for good behaviour he was again employed and kept on probation. On 31st May, 1977 he resigned from service and his resignation was accepted, but later on various requests were made by him and he was again employed on 29th August, 1978 and was confirmed on 2nd August, 1978. The workman, opposite party No. 2, was charge-sheeted in 1979 for unauthorisedly pasting a pamphlet on the notice board of the Company and an enquiry was held in the matter which resulted in giving warning and withholding of one increment. In 1980 a show cause notice was issued to him, but actual trouble started in the year 1981 when a charge-sheet was given to him and he was placed under suspension on 21st June, 1981. 4. The Labour Court, Lucknow, considered the objection of the workman that the disciplinary enquiry was vitiated because he was not given full opportunity of hearing. The Labour Court answered this question in favour of the workman and held that he should be given opportunity of hearing and to lead evidence in respect of the charges levelled against him and fixed a date for evidence on which date evidence was tendered by the parties. 5. The first charge-sheet issued to the workman was in respect of distributing pamphlet which was taken to be serious misconduct under paras 14.20, 14.24, 14.47 and 14.2 of the Standing Orders. This charge was held to have been proved according to the employer, but the Labour Court held that the distribution of pamphlet was no doubt proved, but it was not done in the factory premises or its vicinity. 6. In respect of the second charge-sheet the enquiry was held to be fair and proper. The Labour Court considered the extent of the bias or prejudice on the part of the management and the reasons which led the management to terminate the services of the work nan concerned as well as the plea of the employer that the behaviour of the workman was responsible for misconduct which formed the basis of this charge-sheet. 7. The Labour Court considered the extent of the bias or prejudice on the part of the management and the reasons which led the management to terminate the services of the work nan concerned as well as the plea of the employer that the behaviour of the workman was responsible for misconduct which formed the basis of this charge-sheet. 7. The third charge against the workman was that on 14th April, 1981, the workman locked the RAX Exchange in an unauthorised manner with the result that the room stopped working. His subsequent misbehaviour was with the Assistant Security Officer who was directed to find out cause for the same which was said to be a misconduct on his part. The Labour Court was of the view that the enquiry officer inflated the charge of misconduct and held that there was no reason for not accepting the statement of the workman, to which no serious challenge was made, that he tried to contact the superior office to convey information. The Labour Court held that all what was done in good faith regarding the misbehaviour with the Assistant Security Officer Mr, Dobal. So far as remarks of the superior officer Mr. Dobal are concerned, the Labour Court observed that there was no evidence and the officer suggested for giving a warning to the workman and closing the case and was of the view that the management ignored it and proceeded with the enquiry. The Labour Court observed that even argument sake it may be accepted that there was misconduct on his part but it did not merit extreme penalty of dismissal. 8. Regarding the third charge-sheet which contained six charges the Labour Court analysed each and every charge and considered evidence both oral and documentary in respect of the same. The first charge contained in the said charge-sheet is that on 9th July, 1982 the Assistant Telephone Supervisor, D. K. Chaudhary asked the woakman to correct the line fault of RAX, but the workman refused to do so. The Labour Court agreed with the enquiry officer and held that the charge was proved, but it was not such charge on which the workman was to be dismissed. The Labour Court agreed with the enquiry officer and held that the charge was proved, but it was not such charge on which the workman was to be dismissed. The third charge against the workman was that on 11th July, 1981 one Sudhir Kumar telephoned to the workman to his office to collect letter from him, but he did not obey and the said message was conveyed to him through the Assistant Supervisor. The Labour Court held that although the workman was not concerned with the distribution of work and it was not part of his duty but as he did not comply with the order of his superior as such this charge was proved. The other charge against the workman was that he refused to fulfil the order of the Assistant Supervisor Telephone. It was found that on 16th July, 1981 the Exchange was not working though on 15th July, 1981 it was working properly and when the room was checked it was found that the fuse wire was removed. The management concluded that it was the workman who removed the fuse which is an act of misconduct The Labour Court after considering the evidence on record held that this charge was not proved. 9. The Labour Court after analysing the evidence found that the order of dismissal of the workman was passed on the basis of the first charge-sheet. Separate orders were not passed in regard to the other charge-sheet though the record of other charge-sheet also finds place in the dismissal order. 10. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court is perverse and is not correct. It was further contended that the Labour Court, accepted some of toe findings of the enquiry officer while did not accept the others while holding the enquiry and giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties. The finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court is based on evidence on record and it did not ignore any evidence or took into consideration some inadmissible evidence and the finding recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse. 11. The finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court is based on evidence on record and it did not ignore any evidence or took into consideration some inadmissible evidence and the finding recorded by the Labour Court cannot be said to be perverse. 11. Learned Counsel for the petitioner contended that the finding which has been recorded by the Labour Court which accepted some of the findings recorded by the enquiry officer is perverse and the Labour Court committed a manifest error of law in misreading and misconstruing the provisions of the Standing Orders. 12. So far as the misconduct is concerned the Labour Court set aside the punishment of dismissal awarded to the workman, it was contended that it was legally not possible and the Labour Court erred in setting aside the punishment of dismissal. 13. Para 14.2 of the Certified Standing Orders provides for major misconduct. Para 14.2.1 enumerates punishment for major misconduct and it provides that any workman found guilty of any of the misconduct as per Standing Order No. 14.2 and its sub-paras may be awarded punishment mentioned therein which includes dismissal without notice or pay in lieu thereof. According to the management various misconducts were held to have been proved against the workman and punishment for the same was dismissal. Para 14.2(13) of the Certified Standing Orders is as follows : "Carrying, distributing or exhibiting inside the work premises any newspaper, hand-bills, pamphlets, banners, unauthorised badges or posters without the previous sanction of the Manager." 14. The leaflet on which the workman was dismissed was not distributed within the Company's premises or in its vicinity, but away from it. Accepting the finding that such a leaflet was distributed, the Labour Court proceeded to examine the case and came to the conclusion that the quantum of punishment awarded to the workman was not justified and proper and the charge said to have been established against the employees did not entail dismissal from service. Accepting the finding that such a leaflet was distributed, the Labour Court proceeded to examine the case and came to the conclusion that the quantum of punishment awarded to the workman was not justified and proper and the charge said to have been established against the employees did not entail dismissal from service. In this connection the Labour Court relied upon the case of A.L. Kalra v. Project and Equipment Corporation of India Ltd., (1984) 3 SCC 316 , wherein it was held that "where misconduct when proved entails penal consequences, it is obligatory on the employer to specify and if necessary define it with precision and accuracy so that any ex post facto interpretation of same incident may not be camouflaged as misconduct." In the present case the charge against the petitioner is for distribution of unauthorised pamphlet and the second charge refers to the conduct of the workman on previous occasion without specifying previous occasions. The leaflet was distributed outside the company's premises. As such the workman could not be held guilty of misconduct specified in Lara 14.2(13) stated above. The misconduct which has been held to have been proved is contained in Para 14 of the Certified Standing Orders. Para 14.2(2) deals with the "commission of any act subversive of discipline or of good behaviour, including involvement in acts of maral turpitude within or outside the Company or of the Company, or conviction by the Court of law for offence involving moral turpitude." Obviously distribution of leaflet said to have contained certain matters without taking the name of any officer cannot be said to be act of moral turpitude. It was observed by the Labour Court that if a workman makes a speech to criticise the attitude of an officer and exhort the workman to agitate for his removal, such action would not amount to misconduct or insubordination nor would be an act of subversive of discipline. Laxmi Devi Sugar Mills v. Nand Kishore Singh, 1956 (2) LLJ 439 , but it would be an act of gross misconduct to make a speech at a meeting of workman which is inflammatory and tends to undermine the discipline of the workman or incite them to violence or breach of peace, Workmen of Dem Dima Tea Estate v. Dem Dima Estate, 1963 (1) LLJ 750. The distribution of leaflet outside the Company's premises and making general complaint against officers or their behaviour and when it does not include the workman to take law in his own hand or create a breach of peace, it will not be an act of subversive of discipline or good behaviour and the Labour Court has rightly held so. 15. The Labour Court has recorded a finding rejecting certain pleas of the workman and in fact leaflet in question was distributed by the workman, but at a distance away from the factory. The leaflet does not contain statement against any particular officer, as has -also been stated by the enquiry officer in his statement before the Labour Court. On behalf of the employer neither it has been pleaded nor a finding has been recorded by the enquiry officer that any part of the general statement contained in the leaflet is vicious or malicious, and no finding has been recorded as to how the same is against the Company or is prejudicial to the reputation of the Company. 16. In Glaxco Laboratories (P.) Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court Meerut, 1984 SCC (L & S) 42, it was held that "the misconduct prescribed in a standing order which would attract a penalty should have a casual connection with the place of work as well as the time at which it is committed which would ordinarily be within the establishment and during duty hours. Even where the standing order is couched in a language which seeks to extend its operation for beyond the establishment, it would none-the-less be necessary to establish casual connection between the misconduct and the employment". In the present case it was not established that there was any casual connection between the misconduct said to have been committed and the employment. In the absence of any finding regarding falsity of statement, it is difficult to believe that such major misconduct in fact was committed by the employee. Even if it could be said that in fact such a misconduct was committed by the employee inasmuch as he distributed the leaflet containing certain remarks specifically not against any officer or against the working of the Company or its official, it is difficult to accept that the misconduct said to have been committed entailed dismissal of the workman from the service. 17. 17. The Labour Court has held that although the charge of distribution of leaflet has been proved, but the charge is not such as to entail dismissal of the workman from service, and the order of dismissal in the circumstance was not justified. The finding which is thus based on appreciation of evidence calls for no interference and the writ petition filed by the management in this behalf is liable to be dismissed. 18. On behalf of the employer it was contended that back wages could not be awarded by the Labour Court while on behalf of the opposite party No. 2 it was contended that deduction of 25 per cent from back wages was not legal and that he is entitled to full back wages. Section 6(2-A) of U. P. Industrial Disputes Act which is analogous to Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act (Central) provides : "An award in an industrial dispute relating to the discharge or dismissal of a workman may direct the setting aside of the discharge or dismissal and reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as the authority making the award may think fit, or granting such other relief to the workman, including the substitution of any lesser punishment for discharge or dismissal, as the circumstances of the case may require." In view of above provision the Labour Court has wider power in the matter of a workman and in case the Labour Court finds that the dismissal order was not legal and should not have been passed, the Labour Court has power to pass an order in respect of the period during which the employee was kept out of job illegally. The words `such other relief including' clothes the Labour Court with wide powers and discretion in the matter of grant of relief. But the discretion must be exercised in a judicial and gracious manner. The discretion is not to be exercised arbitrarily but according to the rule of reason and justice and on certain principles. The normal rule after setting aside dismissal or termination order is reinstatement with back wages. The starting point of back wages would be the date on which he was made to stop working and the same is found to be illegal. See The Workmen of U. P. Electricity Board v. Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co., (1966) 1 LLJ 730 . The starting point of back wages would be the date on which he was made to stop working and the same is found to be illegal. See The Workmen of U. P. Electricity Board v. Upper Ganges Valley Electricity Supply Co., (1966) 1 LLJ 730 . In the instant case the Labour Court found that enquiry was vitiated and was violative of principles of natural justice and it held an enquiry by itself. The Court found that charges were inflated and punishment was disproportionate and the guilt said to have been committed was not the misconduct which was held to have been proved and as such the punishment of dismissal could not have been awarded. The necessary consequence was reinstatement with full back wages minus the wages earned by the workman during this period elsewhere. In the instant case there was no allegation or evidence that he was gainfully employed elsewhere but the evidence was to the contrary. The Labour Court also found that the conduct of employee also was censurable to some extent and he too was also responsible for bad relationship between employer and employee. In view of the Labour Court's lesser punishment of reduction in back wages and awarding 74-70 of the same was sufficient to meet the ends of justice. The Court had a jurisdiction to do so and the reasons given by it appear to be sound. There appears to be no ground for interference with the same. 19. In the end both the writ petitions are dismissed. But there will be no order as to costs.