JUDGMENT Amitava Roy, J. 1. The subject-matter of challenge is the award dated 17.9.2002 passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Dibrugarh, in Reference Case No. 19/2000 sustaining the dismissal of the writ Petitioner from service by the Respondent Management as a disciplinary measure. 2. I have heard Mr. A. Dasgupta, learned Counsel for the Petitioner assisted by Mr. S. Chakraborty, advocate and Mr. S.N. Sarma, senior advocate for the Respondent No. 1. 3. The abridged version of the Petitioner's case is that she had been appointed as a ward girl in the Garden Hospital of Namdung Tea Estate ('the Tea Estate') in the year 1974; Apart from her, the staff of the Hospital included a nurse, compounder/pharmacist, doctor, etc., to attend to the ailing garden employees. Her duty was to maintain the files and records of the outdoor patients, register their names, forward them to the Doctor by issuing necessary identity cards and to deliver the prescribed medicines to the patients. According to her, she was not required to deal with the indoor patients and was not assigned any night shift duty as the outdoor department functioned only during the daytime. While claiming that the garden authorities were fully satisfied by her performance and that her career has been unblemished, the Petitioner has pleaded that she, because of her strictness in maintaining the garden norms for registration of patients, incurred the displeasure of some of defiant employees who time and again insisted on the violation thereof. The Petitioner has maintained that according to the relevant instructions, registration of patients beyond a scheduled time was not permissible and that an employee in order to avail sickness allowance was required to report at the Hospital before 7 O' Clock in the morning. 4. On 9.8.1997, the Management sought an explanation from her on receipt of a complaint against her from the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha alleging that she used to misbehave with the outdoor patients. The Petitioner replied thereto on 12.8.1997 disclosing inter alia the actual reason for the resentment. The Management, however, on 28.8.1997 served a charge sheet on her with the imputation that she ill-treated outdoor patients who attended the garden hospital and also deprived them of proper medical attention. 5. According to the Petitioner, the charge sheet did not contain the particulars of the instances on the basis of which the charge had been laid. The Management, however, on 28.8.1997 served a charge sheet on her with the imputation that she ill-treated outdoor patients who attended the garden hospital and also deprived them of proper medical attention. 5. According to the Petitioner, the charge sheet did not contain the particulars of the instances on the basis of which the charge had been laid. It also did not refer to the particular clause(s) of the Standing Order violated by her to be construed as a misconduct. Along with the charge sheet a copy of the enquiry report submitted by Dr. P.C. Saikia, Medical Inspector of Plantation was also forwarded. Referring to an episode of death of an indoor patient Karan Singh Lall who had been hospitalized as such on 29.7.1997 at about 7.30 p.m. but had passed away the next morning, the report stated that the nurse of the hospital Smt. Putul Dutta had not informed the Doctor about the admission of the patient and his deteriorating condition and that for her negligence he died. The report further stated that following the incident there was a wide scale resentment amongst the workers in the garden leading to physical confinement of the Manager in the factory by the workers demanding removal of all hospital staff and that the Manager had to be rescued by the Police. The report further disclosed that thereafter the management, assessing the situation had to declare a lock out in the garden, which eventually was lifted following an agreement with the workmen. 6. The Petitioner while denying any involvement in the said incident has contended that to appease the Sangha it has also been mentioned in report that she and the nurse Smt. Putul Dutta used to ill-treat the out door patients and had deprived the deceased patient of proper medical attention. She duly replied to the charge sheet denying the imputations levelled and categorically averred that she had never ill-treated any person or deprived the sick the necessary medical attention or treatment. 7. The management, however, decided to proceed in the matter and a departmental enquiry followed which according to her was conducted in gross violation of the principles of fairness and natural justice. On the completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner had been proved. 7. The management, however, decided to proceed in the matter and a departmental enquiry followed which according to her was conducted in gross violation of the principles of fairness and natural justice. On the completion of the enquiry, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges levelled against the Petitioner had been proved. On receipt of the enquiry report, she submitted a representation underlining the irregularities in the enquiry and further asserted that the charges had not been established. She was eventually dismissed from service w.e.f. 4.5.1998. 8. Being aggrieved by her dismissal, the Petitioner raised an Industrial Dispute and as the conciliation proceedings related thereto failed, the same was ultimately referred to the Labour Court, Dibrugarh under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for adjudication vide Government of India notification GLR 191/2000/10 dated 24.10.2000. In the reference, the parties filed their pleadings and examined witnesses in support of their respective pleas. By the impugned award, the Petitioner's dismissal was upheld. Though the domestic enquiry was held to be unfair, the learned labour court sustained the decision of the Management acting on the evidence on merit adduced by it in the reference proceeding. 9. The Respondent Management in its counter before this Court while reiterating the indictment that the Petitioner as a Ward Girl of the Garden Hospital of Namdung Tea Estate used to regularly misbehave and harass the sick workers who came for treatment has asserted that the same resulted in a general discontentment amongst the workers impelling them to adopt an agitational path against the management. It referred to the incident of 31.7.1997, where a large section workers in a riotous mood assembled in front of the factory main office and confined the Manager and the other staff following the death of a worker Kanam Singh Lal due to the lapse in duty of the Petitioner and her two hospital colleagues. Large scale postering in the garden demanding removal of all paramedical staff in the Hospital accompanied the demonstration. The situation reached such a pass that even the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Medical Inspector of Plantations, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Margherita who sought to pacify the irate workmen were gheraoed and kept in illegal confinement and had to be eventually rescued by the Police. The situation reached such a pass that even the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Medical Inspector of Plantations, the Sub-Divisional Officer (Civil), Margherita who sought to pacify the irate workmen were gheraoed and kept in illegal confinement and had to be eventually rescued by the Police. Assessing the situation, the Management had to declare a lock out on 1.8.1997 and following a conciliation proceeding assuring that an independent enquiry would be conducted by the Medical Inspector of Plantation situation was pacified and the garden could be made functional. 10. Accordingly, Dr. P.C. Saikia, Medical Inspector of Plantations, Tinsukia, conducted the enquiry and submitted a report, which inter alia revealed that outdoor patients were very often ill treated by the Petitioner and because of her refusal to forward them to the Doctor they were denied proper medical attention. On a scrutiny of the report, the Management, therefore, issued a charge sheet enclosing therewith the complaints received from the Union as well as the enquiry report of the Medical Inspector of Plantations. The Respondent-management has denied that the charge sheet was vague. According to it, all essential facts had been provided to the Petitioner wherefrom the charges brought against her were apparent and obvious. It denied the Petitioner's contention that the report of the Medical Inspector of Plantation was not backed by evidence or was prepared or drawn up without affording any opportunity to her. The answering Respondent stated that as the explanation provided by the Petitioner was found to be unsatisfactory, a domestic enquiry was held in course of which she was accorded all reasonable opportunities. On the conclusion of the enquiry and on an examination of the enquiry report, the Respondent-management was satisfied that the charge brought against the Petitioner had been established and that she was guilty of a gross misconduct. A copy of the enquiry report was forwarded to her seeking a reply on the same. The representation made by the Petitioner being not considered to be satisfactory, viewing the misconduct to be serious, she was dismissed from service. While endorsing the conclusion of the learned labour court on merits, the Respondent-management has pleaded that in the reference proceeding its witnesses have specifically stated about the incidents of misbehaviour by her towards the ailing workmen. The representation made by the Petitioner being not considered to be satisfactory, viewing the misconduct to be serious, she was dismissed from service. While endorsing the conclusion of the learned labour court on merits, the Respondent-management has pleaded that in the reference proceeding its witnesses have specifically stated about the incidents of misbehaviour by her towards the ailing workmen. According to it, she had admitted in her reply to the memo of charges to have refused to register the names of patients who attended the hospital after 7 a.m. The Respondent Management has maintained that the attitude of the Petitioner was inconsistent with the motto of establishing the hospital under the Plantation Labour Act, 1951 and endorsed the penalty of dismissal from service being commensurate with the proved misconduct. It has reiterated that any lesser punishment would have led to a similar pandemonium in the Garden, an eventuality it could not risk to take. 11. Mr. Dasgupta has argued that as apparently the Petitioner was not even remotely responsible for the cause of death of the patient that had led to the outrage and the eventual lock out of the garden, the impugned action being only a ruse to pacify the agitating workmen for self-serving ends, the impugned dismissal besides being illegal is lacking in bona fide and the learned labour court having sustained the same by overlooking the materials on record, the award assailed is liable to be interfered with in the interest of justice. The charge sheet served on the Petitioner being vague in essential particulars, the same ought to have been adjudged non est in law, he urged. The learned Counsel contended that in absence of any specific complaint against the Petitioner supporting the charge, the learned court below ought to have dismissed the action taken thereon to be null and void. According to Mr. Das Gupta, as the Petitioner meticulously followed the garden instructions and the guidelines pertaining to outdoor patients, logically incurring the displeasure of a section of indisciplined and opportunist workmen, the learned labour court erred in sustaining her dismissal disregarding the fact that the management's witnesses have not been able to establish the charge brought against her. According to Mr. Das Gupta, as the Petitioner meticulously followed the garden instructions and the guidelines pertaining to outdoor patients, logically incurring the displeasure of a section of indisciplined and opportunist workmen, the learned labour court erred in sustaining her dismissal disregarding the fact that the management's witnesses have not been able to establish the charge brought against her. As Clause 10(b)(ii) of the Standing Orders applicable to the Garden was not attracted to the facts of the instant case, the learned court below erroneously acted on the same by importing individual notions non-germane to the issue, thus, vitiating the impugned award. Mr. Dasgupta has also argued that the evidence of the Petitioner's witnesses had been left out of consideration and that findings of the learned labour court are perverse being not based on the materials on record. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Counsel has argued that even assuming that Clause 10(b)(ii) of the Standing Orders could be invoked, the penalty of dismissal is unsustainable as the said provision stipulates for fine only under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. The decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif (Dead) through L.Rs, (1982) 2 SCC 376 and Glaxo Laboratories India Ltd. v. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Meerut, AIR 1984 SC 505 , were pressed into service. 12. In reply, Mr. Sarma argued that not only the charge laid in the charge sheet was categorical and clear, the complaint of the Sangha as well as the enquiry report by the Medical Inspector of Plantations clearly furnish the facts in full support thereof. The learned senior counsel emphasized that the Petitioner's reply to the charge sheet demonstrates that she had duly understood the same. While underlining that at the relevant time there was no guideline that the workmen reporting after 7 a.m. in the morning would not be entitled to medical treatment, Mr. Sarma has argued that the Petitioner as the Ward Girl was not authorized to withhold a patient from being treated by the Doctor. As the hospital had been established under the Plantation Labour Act, the Petitioner's conduct was not only opposed to the purpose thereof but had led to deep rooted rancour leading to the unprecedented situation of forcible physical confinement of the Garden Manager and Government Officials by the peeved workmen. As the hospital had been established under the Plantation Labour Act, the Petitioner's conduct was not only opposed to the purpose thereof but had led to deep rooted rancour leading to the unprecedented situation of forcible physical confinement of the Garden Manager and Government Officials by the peeved workmen. The learned Counsel argued that not only the Petitioner's behaviour and attitude towards patients constituted a gross misconduct, it resulted in a turbulent atmosphere in the garden compelling the management to declare a temporary closure thereof. The learned senior counsel argued that the award being based on materials on record, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it does not call for any interference by this Court. He submitted that the Petitioner has in the meantime drawn all her service entitlements. Mr. Sarma has relied on the decision of the Apex Court in Mahendra Singh Dhantwal v. Hindustan Motors Ltd. and Ors., AIR 1976 SC 2062 . 13. The rival pleadings and the arguments advanced have been duly considered. The charge in essence levelled against the Petitioner is her harsh non-cooperative and immodest disposition towards the patients attending the Garden Hospital so much so that they were resultantly deprived of proper medical attention thereat. Noticeably the letter dated 28.8.1997 carrying the allegation did not refer to any specific instance or instances but was accompanied by a copy of the complaint received from the President, Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Namdug T.E. Unit of the Assam Chah Mazdoor Sangha dated 9.8.1997 as well as that of a report submitted by Dr. P.C. Saikia, Medical Inspector of Plantation to the above effect. This followed the untoward situation in the Garden in course of which the Manager thereof as well as some Government officials were held on seize by the agitated workers incensed over the death of a co-worker Kanam Singh Lall who after being hospitalized as an indoor patient on 29.7.1997 at about 5.30 a.m. expired allegedly for want of proper medical attention. The furious workers demanded removal of the paramedical staff of the hospital holding them responsible for the mishap. In the report dated 21.8.1997 submitted by Dr. P.C. Saikia, Medical Inspector of Plantation after conducting an enquiry it was recorded that the outpatients attending the Garden Hospital were often ill-treated and deprived of medical attention by Smt. Putul Dutta, sister and Smt. Sabita Chakravarty (Petitioner). In the report dated 21.8.1997 submitted by Dr. P.C. Saikia, Medical Inspector of Plantation after conducting an enquiry it was recorded that the outpatients attending the Garden Hospital were often ill-treated and deprived of medical attention by Smt. Putul Dutta, sister and Smt. Sabita Chakravarty (Petitioner). As the report indicates, the enquiry was held primarily to determine the cause of the death of the aforenamed indoor patient and categorically hinted at the lapse on the part of Smt. Putul Dutta to promptly inform the concerned authorities about the deteriorating condition of the patient and that timely steps if taken would have saved his life. 14. In the complaint stated to have been submitted by the President, Secretary and the Assistant Secretary of the Union, a demand was made to oust Smt. Putul Dutta, Sister, Smt. Sabita Chakravarty, Outdoor attendant and Shri Jhuma Choudhury, Pharmacist, from the hospital in view of their misbehaviour and abuses on all who attend the hospital for treatment. The complaint implicitly referred to the incident of death. A combined reading of the letter dated 28.8.1997 addressed to the Petitioner, the enquiry report and the complaint makes the charge levelled against the Petitioner obvious and an intelligible. She was indicted for her persistent ill treatment and misbehaviour towards the patients visiting the garden hospital for their treatment for which they were deprived of proper medical department. The Petitioner's reply to the allegations made which in substance is a total denial thereof also demonstrates her understanding of the imputations. The plea that the charge sheet did not disclose clearly the charge against the Petitioner, therefore, cannot be sustained. The decision of the Apex Court in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Mohd. Sharif, supra, is of no avail to the Petitioner as the charge was traceable to an incident the particulars whereof were not spelt out in the memorandum of charges. 15. There is no wrangle at the bar that the Standing Orders for Estates in Assam in the Membership of the Assam and Surma Valley Branches of the Indian Tea Association ('the Standing Orders') is applicable to the Petitioner. Under Clause 9(c) thereof, the Manager of the concerned tea garden is empowered to dismiss any worker who is guilty of gross misconduct. Under Clause 9(c) thereof, the Manager of the concerned tea garden is empowered to dismiss any worker who is guilty of gross misconduct. The Standing Order, however, requires that such worker must be informed in writing of such misconduct and be afforded an opportunity to explain the circumstances alleged against him. Clause 10 defines and enumerates the acts constituting misconduct. Clause 10(a) deals with gross misconduct. The acts and omissions comprehended in Clause 10(b) constitute misconduct for which the Manager is authorized to fine any worker to the extent permitted by the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Clause "8" of 10(b) clarifies that repeated commission of offences under Clause 10(b) would constitute a gross misconduct. Considering the charge brought against the Petitioner which evidently is not relatable to a particular instance or instances but her continual and overall attitude towards the patients attending the hospital to be visited with rude, intemperate and curt treatment depriving them of much needed medical treatment, her conduct, if proved, may well be conceived within an act prejudicial to public health at the work site as envisaged in Clause 10(b)(2) of the Standing Orders. This is more so as the hospital had been established under the provisions of the Plantation Labour Act. 16. The Apex Court in Mahendra Singh Dhantwal, supra, had observed that the Standing Orders of a company only describes certain cases of misconduct and the same cannot be exhaustive of all the species of misconduct which a workman may commit and that any conduct even if not within the defined misconduct may still be a misconduct. 17. In M/s. Glaxo Laboratories (I), supra, however, the above observation was held not to be a proposition of law but construable in the facts of that case. While reiterating that the purpose of a Standing Order is to ensure uniformity of terms and conditions of employment it in respect of workmen in an industrial establishment to be well established and known to the employees before they accept the employment it was held that nothing can be left to the vagaries of the management to permit to say ex-post facto that some acts of omission or commission nowhere enumerated in the Standing Order is nonetheless a misconduct for the purpose of imposing a penalty. 18. 18. The facts as obtained in the instant case do not warrant further dilation on the state of law as enunciated, the misconduct alleged against the Petitioner, in the opinion of the court being comprehended in Clause 10(b)(2) of the Standing Orders. 19. A reading of the award reveals that the learned labour court in recording its findings against the Petitioner took note of the contents of the letter of charge dated 28.8.1997, the enquiry report, Union's complaint (Exhibit 28) as well as the evidence of the Managements witnesses, MW2, MW3 and MW5 supporting the imputation against the Petitioner. The learned court below though mentioned that the Petitioner in her evidence had denied the allegations and also recorded the names of her witnesses did not discuss their testimony to verify the bearing thereof on the charge. This is more importantly as the domestic enquiry held into the same charge was discarded by the learned court below and the management had been permitted on their prayer to adduce evidence on the charge of merit. The learned labour court as a justification to leave aside the evidence of the Petitioner's witnesses acted upon a letter dated 12.8.1997 (exhibit 31) by her to the effect that she used to attend to the sick workers of Basti Line and Digboi Line in the outdoor segments of the hospital and had no connection with those of the other lines namely Garha line, Old line, Pilkhana line, etc. In the said letter, she, however, denied to have harassed or misbehaved with the workers coming to the hospital for treatment. According to the learned labour court, therefore, the evidence of the workman's witnesses who were from the Garha line and Pilkhana Line was of no consequence. 20. A cursory reading of the evidence of the witnesses of the Petitioner divulge that though they used to visit their line dispensaries for treatment, they also frequented the hospital where the Petitioner served as a ward girl. WW5, Suresh Kumar, who at the relevant time was the Health Assistant of the Hospital deposed against the charge. 20. A cursory reading of the evidence of the witnesses of the Petitioner divulge that though they used to visit their line dispensaries for treatment, they also frequented the hospital where the Petitioner served as a ward girl. WW5, Suresh Kumar, who at the relevant time was the Health Assistant of the Hospital deposed against the charge. Apart therefrom, the Petitioner had proved representations (Exhibits E, F, G, H and I) of the workers of the Pilkhana, Digboi, Garha, Basti and Purana lines stating in categorical terms that they had no complain against the Petitioner and that she had never ill treated them or misbehaved with them and implored the authority to permit her to continue in service. These documents were not taken note of by the learned court below. This assumes significance in the perspective of the complaint stated to have been submitted by the President, Secretary and Assistant Secretary of the Union which has purportedly voiced the unreserved and unanimous indignation of all the workers of the garden demanding the termination of the services of the Petitioner and two other paramedical staff of the hospital. Neither in the domestic enquiry nor before the learned labour court, Dr. P.C. Saikia, Medical Inspector of Plantations, Tinsukia, on whose report considerable emphasis has been laid had not been examined. The report prima facie indicates that neither the Petitioner nor the other members of the para medical staff involved were afforded any opportunity of presenting their defence. This report was proved in the reference proceedings by MW5, Prasant Sahgal, Manager of the Tea Estate. The said witness in his cross-examination admitted that there was no written complaint against the Petitioner earlier in this regard. 21. In the opinion of this Court, therefore, the conclusion recorded by the learned labour court that as the Petitioner had no opportunity to deal with her witnesses as patients, their testimony against the charge did not signify that the other patients were not ill treated by her, is wholly inferential and an yield of non-consideration of the evidence as a whole available on record. The learned labour court's deduction that the evidence of MW2 and MW3 had remained unrebutted, in the face of the other overwhelming materials on record cannot be sustained. The learned labour court's deduction that the evidence of MW2 and MW3 had remained unrebutted, in the face of the other overwhelming materials on record cannot be sustained. Reliance on the report (exhibit 32) in the teeth of the omission of the learned labour court to take into account all other evidence on the issue to buttress his determination against: the Petitioner cannot receive the approval of this Court. The learned court below in arriving at its conclusion on the charge left aside relevant facts and evidence both oral and documentary so as to vitiate the same. As a writ court, I am not inclined to examine and evaluate the evidence on record to substitute the conclusion(s) of the learned labour court. However, in view of the determination hereinabove, the impugned award warrants interference. It is, therefore, set aside. 22. The matter stands remitted to the learned labour court, Dibrugarh, for a fresh disposal on the basis of the evidence on record after hearing both the parties. The points decided by this Court, however, need not be reopened in course of the fresh adjudication and the learned court below would confine its scrutiny to the proof or otherwise of the charges on the basis of the materials already available on record. As it has been submitted on behalf of the management that in the meantime the Petitioner has withdrawn her service entitlements as far back as on 16.11.2000, this Court is not inclined to direct her reinstatement at this stage. The learned labour court would on receipt of the records make an endeavour to dispose of the reference afresh within the contours referred to hereinabove within a period of two months therefrom. The office would send down the records immediately. The petition, thus, stands allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. No costs. Petition allowed