JUDGMENT - CHITRE J.G., J.:---This writ petition has been mentioned as listed for final hearing but even then the respondents are absent and none is present for them. It pertains to the year 1995. Therefore, this Court is hearing it finally and deciding it on merit. 2. The petitioner who happens to be the employee of respondent company is hereby assailing correctness, propriety and legality of the judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court, Pune in the matter of Reference (IDA) No. 139 of 1991. 3. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Pune has made a reference under Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 10 read with sub-section (5) of section 12 of Industrial Disputes Act for adjudication. The dispute between M/s. Arlabs Ltd. and Shri Namdeo Mahadeo Khandale arose over the following demands. "Shri Namdeo Mahadeo khandale, whose services have been terminated with effect from 1-6-1990 should be reinstated in his original post with full back wages for the intervening idle period and continuity of service." The Second Party filed the statement of claim vide Exh. 11 and contended that he was working with first party since 5-10-1973 as a worker and his last drawn wages were Rs. 1727-39 paise. He was served with the charge-sheet on 26-8-1989 wherein it was alleged that on 24-8-1989 at about 12 O'clock the second party abused Shri S.A. Dandavate, Clerk of the First Party in filthy language and assaulted him when second party was under the influence of alcohol. The second party was charged for misconduct as contemplated by Clause 23(h), (k), (i) of Standing Orders applicable to the company. During investigation, the second party was suspended with immediate effect on the day when the charge-sheet was served on him. Thereafter the enquiry was initiated against him. The second party (present petitioner) was initially dismissed after the conclusion of said enquiry and he moved a complaint to Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Pune who forwarded the reference to Labour Court, Pune as indicated above. 4. The claim of second party was opposed by First Party by filing the statement at Exh. 14. The first party contended all details of the charges levelled against the second party therein. 4. The claim of second party was opposed by First Party by filing the statement at Exh. 14. The first party contended all details of the charges levelled against the second party therein. It contended that on 24-8-1989 at about 12 O'clock the second party assaulted and abused its Clerk, Shri Dandavate, and the second party committed breach of Clause 23(h), (i) and (k) of the Model Standing Orders. It contended that the explanation offered by second party was not satisfactory. 5. The Labour Court while answering the reference held that the second party was guilty of misconduct on the basis of evidence in the enquiry and held that the punishment of dismissal passed against the second party was proportionate. On this conclusion the Labour Court considered the evidence adduced by the parties in the enquiry in view of the purshis filed by the Counsel appearing for the parties. The Labour Court held that the statement of Dandavate, Rudhra Bhatt and Veer have sufficiently proved the misconduct on the part of second party present petitioner. The Labour Court dismissed the contention raised by the second party-the present petitioner that on the date and time of the said incident he was not present there and he has been falsely implicated in the said charge because the first party respondent wanted to purchase the land belonging to him and he was not ready for that. The Labour Court also dismissed the contention raised by the present petitioner the second party that for the purpose of making present petitioner to sell his land, a pressure was created by the first party respondent by initiating this enquiry. 6. Shri Kiran Bapat, Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submitted that firstly the misconduct has to be proved and for that the evidence should have been sufficient enough to prove it. He pointed out that the statements of Dandavate, Rudra Bhatt and Veer were vague and were not proving the misconduct to the point of truth. This Court upholds the said submission advanced by Shri Kiran Bapat for the reasons stated hereunder. 7. The statements of Dandavate, Rudhra Bhatt and Veer are vague so far as charge-sheet and allegations levelled against the present petitioner are concerned. Those statements are not sure as to the place where the said alleged incident took place. This Court upholds the said submission advanced by Shri Kiran Bapat for the reasons stated hereunder. 7. The statements of Dandavate, Rudhra Bhatt and Veer are vague so far as charge-sheet and allegations levelled against the present petitioner are concerned. Those statements are not sure as to the place where the said alleged incident took place. It positively appears that the said incident took place out of the gate of the factory. When that is so, the submissions advanced by Shri Kiran Bapat assumes importance. He submitted that if the said incident has no connection whatsoever with the business of the company, the present petitioner cannot be held liable for misconduct in context with the charge which has been levelled against him vide the charge-sheet and he cannot be punished by virtue of the said enquiry which was held against him in context with the said charge. 8. The statements of those witnesses are not sufficient to prove that the said incident took place within the premises of the company and unless that point is proved the petitioner cannot be held to be liable for the charge of misconduct which has got connection with the affairs of the company concerned. 9. There is variance in material particulars in the statements of those three witnesses in respect of assault and alleged abuses. Those days were rainy days. Therefore, raising of the umbrella may not have been for the assault. When the statements of those witnesses are not passing the test of truth and reliability, they cannot be accepted for coming to the conclusion that the present petitioner had abused Shri Dandavate as alleged by the respondent company first party. The abuses have not been also mentioned and there is no reason as to why the said witnesses were not mentioning the said abuses. Unless specific abuses are mentioned, one cannot understand as to what was the intention of the person uttering the abuses. It is a matter of common experience that in common parlance also many words are being uttered without meaning and those words unfortunately come under the term "abuses". So far as petitioners' case is concerned, the word "abuses" is a relative term. Therefore, unless those abuses are quoted, one cannot come to the conclusion that person uttering those words was uttering them for the purpose of insulting a person to whom said abuses were given. So far as petitioners' case is concerned, the word "abuses" is a relative term. Therefore, unless those abuses are quoted, one cannot come to the conclusion that person uttering those words was uttering them for the purpose of insulting a person to whom said abuses were given. When the intention of insulting is lacking, it would be very difficult to come to the conclusion that an act of such person, accused of such misconduct was presenting him in such fashion which can be described as "misconduct". When the statements of the witnesses were totally lacking these most important ingredients, the learned Labour Court should have considered this aspect carefully. The Labour Court also committed an error in coming to the conclusion that the statements of those witnesses were sufficient to prove that the present petitioner second party had assaulted said Clerk Shri Dandavate. 10. The Labour Court also committed an error of discarding the defence version when the present petitioner second party contended that the first party company wanted to purchase the land for which he was not ready and, therefore, the present petitioner was not facing a comfortable atmosphere. The present petitioner examined a woman labourer who happened to be working in his field at the relevant time. The Labour Court dismissed her statement by coming to the conclusion that she was unable to tell exact information in respect of said land transaction. The Labour Court also committed an error in pointing out that when the first party company was paying compensation for the damage caused by it to the lands of the present petitioner second party, why it should go for purchasing the said land. Keeping in view the human experience the learned Judge committed an error in drawing the conclusion on this point. 11. Summing up all, and considering the material which was considered by the Labour Court, as a whole, this Court comes to the conclusion that the Labour Court committed an error in coming to the conclusion against the present petitioner. As the conclusions drawn by the Labour Court were not consistent with the material on record, the Labour Court committed the error by shifting the burden of proof and therefore it committed an error finally passing said judgment and Award against the present petitioner. 12. As the conclusions drawn by the Labour Court were not consistent with the material on record, the Labour Court committed the error by shifting the burden of proof and therefore it committed an error finally passing said judgment and Award against the present petitioner. 12. In view of Article 227 of Constitution of India by exercising the jurisdiction of superintendence, the judgment and Award which has been passed by the Labour Court and which has been assailed by this writ petition cannot be permitted to be in existence it will have to be set aside because it is inconsistent with the material on record and perverse. By grant of writ of certiorari the said judgment and Award passed by the Labour Court stands set aside. By the writ of mandamus the respondent the first party company is hereby directed to treat the petitioner as reinstated from the date on which he was suspended. As Shri Bapat has submitted that the petitioner has retired, hence, he would be deemed to have been reinstated. The respondent first party company is hereby directed to pay him full back wages from the date on which he was suspended i.e. 26-8-1989 till the date of his retirement. Thus, petition stands allowed with costs. Petition allowed. -----