JUDGMENT A.N. Varma 1. This petition is directed against an Industrial award made by the Labour Court, Allahabad in Adjudication case no. 40 of 1975 upholding the dismissal of a workman represented by the petitioner Unions. The concerned workman, Dinanath Murya was employed at the relevant time as an electrician in M/s. Hindustan Aluminium Corporation Ltd. the third respondent to this petition on the charge of disobedience. The said workman was dismissed upon the conclusion of a domestic enquiry which was ordered to go into the charge framed against the workman. 2. Aggrieved by that action of the management, the petitioner union spoused the case of the workman and eventually succeeded in getting the dispute referred under section 4K of the U. P. Industrial Dispute Act for adjudication of the Labour Court Allahabad. In the written statement filed on behalf of the workman, it was pleaded by the petitioner that the workman had not been asked to repair the machine or to carry out the work entrusted to him by the Foreman or any other superior officer. It is also pleaded that the enquiry conducted by the management was wholly invalid and are against the principles of natural justice. Finally, it was asserted that the dismissal was illegal and unjustified and that the concerned workman was entitled to be reinstated. The management contested the claim of the petitioner and asserted in its statement that the workman was at the relevant time employed as an electrician in Grade I on 17-9-1976. While he was on duty, he was given certain instructions by his Foreman but the workman refused to carry out the job. Subsequently he was asked by the Assistant Superintendent to do the said job comprising repair of the breaker of the mixer no. 1. The Assistant Superintendent tried to convince him that it was his job and he has been doing it in the past also but in spite of this, the workman persisted and declined to carry out the job. Accordingly, he was charge sheeted on grounds of misconduct on 17-9-1974. The explanation submitted by the workman was not satisfactory whereupon a domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charge of wilful disobedience was fully substantiated. The report was followed by dismissal of the workman by an order dated 4-10-1974. The explanation submitted by the workman was not satisfactory whereupon a domestic enquiry was conducted in accordance with the relevant rules and principles of natural justice. The enquiry officer submitted his report holding that the charge of wilful disobedience was fully substantiated. The report was followed by dismissal of the workman by an order dated 4-10-1974. It was asserted by the management that in the facts and circumstances, the dismissal was wholly justified. 3. In support of his case, the management filed before the Labour Court the entire evidence pertaining to the enquiry conducted against the workman on a consideration of the material brought on record, the Labour Court reached to the conclusion that the enquiry conducted against the workman was fair and proper and the same does not suffer from any illegality. In regard to plea raised before the Labour Court on behalf of the petitioner as to the quantum of punishment, the Labour Court has observed that the workman is clearly guilty of misconduct as defined in sub-clause (y) of clause 21 of the applicable standing orders. This clause reads thus ; "The following acts or omissions will be treated as misconduct : (a)............ (b)............ (c)............ (y) wilful insubordination or disobedience whether alone or in combination with another or others of any lawful and reasonable order of superior." 4. The Labour Court held that considering the evidence on the record the quantum of punishment given to the workman was fully justified. Aggrieved by this award, the petitioners have approached this court. Learned counsel for the petitioner confined his submissions only to two points : One, that the act or omission for which the workman has been dismissed is covered by sub-clause (b) of clause 23 of Standing Orders for which the punishment which the management could award would be a censure or warning notice. 5. I am unable to agree, sub-clause (b) of clause 23 reads thus : "Workman may be fined or alternatively be given a censure or warning notice if found guilty of any of the under noted acts or omissions, provided that for offences under standing 23 (b) and standing order 23 (d) a censure or warning notice only may be issued :- (a)............ (b) Negligence in work or neglect of work." 6. This clause has no application whatever to the present case. (b) Negligence in work or neglect of work." 6. This clause has no application whatever to the present case. The charge against the workman was not that he was negligent in his work or that he neglected his work. It is, on the other hand, one of wilful insubordination and disobedience. Where the workman merely omits to do a piece of work, it may be said that he has neglected to do the work; Where, as here, however, the workman clines to obey specific orders or instructions of his superiors, it would not be a case of mere neglect of work but would be one of wilful insubordination or disobedience. In the present case, the charge is that despite repeated instructions given first by the Foreman, the, later by the Assistant Superintendent, the concerned workman refused to carry out the repair which resulted in losses to the management running into lakhs, clause (b) of Standing Order 23 has, therefore, no application whatever to the present case. Learned counsel next contended in this connection that, in any case, according to the Standing Order 22, the management should have taken into account the previous record of the concerned workman before awarding any punishment of misconduct, I find no substance in this argument. In the first place, it cannot be said that the management had not taken into account the previous record of concerned workman. Secondly, in view of the gravity of the offence the management cannot be said to have acted arbitrarily in awarding the entreme punishment of dismissal the refusal by the concerned workman of clear instructions was persistent and therefore, furnished a valid ground sufficient to warrant the punishment meted out by the management. In any case, in the facts and circumstances of the case the punishment cannot be characterised as shockingly out of proportion. 7. To support his conclusion, learned invited my attention to three decisions of the Supreme Court. The first decision cited Ramakant Mis/a v. State of U. P., 1982 SC 1552. The decision is clearly distinguishable. Here the punishment of dismissal had been inflicted merely on the use of improper and in discreet language by the employee on a single occasion. The present is not a case of mere use of language indiscreed and improper but of an act amounting to wilful insubordination. 8. The decision is clearly distinguishable. Here the punishment of dismissal had been inflicted merely on the use of improper and in discreet language by the employee on a single occasion. The present is not a case of mere use of language indiscreed and improper but of an act amounting to wilful insubordination. 8. The same is true of the other decision cited by the learned counsel, namely, Ved Prakash Gupta v. M/s Delton Cable India (P.) Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 914 . This again is a case where the concerned workman had used abusive language for his superior on a single occasion. It was not a case of persistent disobedience of lawful orders of the superiors, Lastly, learned counsel cited a decision reported in 1984 LIC 7. This case is easily distinguishable. There a driver had been dismissed on the ground that he was found drunk at the time of driving. Cases where an employee does some act without being fully conscious of the implications of his acts on account of drunkeness or otherwise stand apart and are fundamentally from the cases where acts of insubordination are committed wilfully. 9. There is, therefore, no merit in this petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.