ORDER 1. By way of present petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India the petitioner being aggrieved by orders dated 29.6.2018 passed by Labour Court in case No. COC71/A/MPIR Act/2015, whereby the order of his termination challenged was not interfered with and the reference was dismissed. Further challenge is to the order dated 20.11.2018 passed by the Industrial Tribunal whereby the order dated 29.6.2018 passed by Labour Court was challenged in appeal No.5/MPIR/2018, was also dismissed. 2. Brief facts of the case in nutshell are that the petitioner was appointed by Gwalior Alcobrew Pvt. Ltd. on 1.10.1994 for clerical work against a vacant post. The petitioner who was working as salesman URC at Air Force Base, Maharajpura, Gwalior made number of complaints regarding the privalent widespread corrupt practices in the Department but instead of acting upon the said complaints, on 11.5.2015 the gates of factory were closed for the petitioner. Against the action of the respondents the petitioner moved the Labour Court vide case No.43-A/2015/MPIR, wherein vide order dated 21.5.2015 interim relief was granted to the petitioner but the company didn't permit the petitioner to enter in the premises and continue working. 3. Thereafter on 23.5.2015 a Show Cause Notice was issued which was received by the petitioner on 13.6.2015. In the meanwhile, another Show Cause Notice dated 23.5.2015 was issued and General Manager of the company vide letter dated 6.6.2015 asked the petitioner to appear before the domestic enquiry on 15.6.2015. Vide letter dated 17.6.2015 the petitioner requested that as no documents have been provided to him alongwith the Show Cause Notice, therefore, the same be provided to him, so that he may submit his reply but the said application was never reverted by the company. 4. In the case which was filed before the Labour Court by the petitioner, vide order dated 27.6.2015 learned Labour Court allowed the reference and permitted the petitioner to join his duties and the company was directed to give work to the petitioner concerning his job and responsibilities but as and when the petitioner approached the company on 4.7.2015 he was not allowed to enter the premises rather was made to sit in the watchman's cabin. Prior to that, on 29.6.2015 a letter was issued by the company directing the petitioner to remain present in the factory on 11.7.2015 at 11:00 am in the morning for hearing of the Departmental Enquiry for which charge sheet dated 2.7.2015 was issued to the petitioner which was received by him on 4.7.2015 and the petitioner vide letter dated 29.6.2015 was asked to submit his reply to the charge sheet on or before 11.7.2015. Before the petitioner could even submit his reply to the charge sheet, an order dated 9.7.2015 was issued by the company terminating the service of the petitioner. Thus, constrained the petitioner filed an application under sections 31, 61 and 62 of MP Industrial Relations Act, 1960 before the Labour Court, Gwalior. 5. Learned Labour Court vide order dated 14.7.2016 held the house enquiry conducted by the company to be illegal but gave an opportunity to the respondent/company to prove the charges of misconduct. After conducting full fledged trial learned Labour Court held the misconduct of the petitioner to be proved, with regard to assault on another co-employee of the company while he was in the premises of Labour Court when he was supposed to testify in some matter against another worker on 26.6.2015. 6. Aggrieved the petitioner preferred an appeal before the Industrial Tribunal which was dismissed holding that no illegality has been committed by the Labour Court in coming to the conclusion that charges of misconduct against the petitioner have been proved. Hence, the present petition has been filed for consideration of his case under Standard Standing Order 12(1) (f) of M.P. Industrial employment (Standard Standing Orders) Rules, 1963. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that the Industrial Court while upholding the finding as to that of the incident which had taken place as alleged, committed a grave error in holding that the same did constitute misconduct under clause 12 of the Standard Standing Orders, as the same has not occurred either during the working hours or within the premises of the Establishment and therefore, had no nexus to the employment. Learned counsel for the petitioner has further argued that in view of the fact that M.P. Industrial Employment (Standard Standing Orders) Act, 1961 and the Rules of 1963 framed thereunder were applicable in the case of the respondent/undertaking disciplinary action could be taken for misconduct enumerated in clause 12(1)(f) of M.P. Industrial employment (Standard Standing Orders) Act, 1961 (in short 'SSO') annexed to the Rules and since the conduct of the petitioner could not be brought home in the domestic enquiry which would amount to misconduct within the meaning of clause 12(1)(f) of SSO, thus, the Labour Court as well as the Industrial Tribunal committed a grave error in holding to the contrary. It was further argued that even as per the case setup by the respondent/employer the incident had occurred outside the premises of undertaking and since it has no nexus with the employment, the employee could not have been proceeded against for misconduct under the provisions of SSO. 8. Learned counsel for the respondents No. 3 and 4, on the other hand submitted that learned Industrial Court, while upholding the finding that the incident had taken place as alleged, had not committed any error in holding that the same constittue a misconduct under clause 12 of the Standard Standing Orders, though it had not occured during the working hours or within the premises. It was further argued that from the statement of victim, it was clear that the presence of the pettiioner in the Labour Court premises on the day of incident was wholly unwarranted and indulging oneself in som physical assault, is conclusive of misconduct and disorderly behaviour. 9. It was further argued that in view of the fact that M.P. Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1961 and Rules of 1963, framed thereunder wre applicable in the case of petitioner's undertaking, disciplinary action could be taken for the misconduct enumerated in clause 12(f) of Standard Standing Orders and also since the misconduct of the petitioner was found proved in the domestic enquiry, no error had been committed by the Courts below, thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition being devoid of any substance. 10. 10. In view of the rival submissions the question for consideration which is posed before this Court is as to whether on the allegations on which the petitioner was terminated would come under the category of misconduct as enumerated in clause 12(1)(f) of SSO or not. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of his argument had placed reliance in the case of Ambuja Cement Easter Ltd. v. Industrial Court Bench, Raipur, (2001) IIILLJ 1254 MP, 2001 (2) MPHT 3 , and had tried to emphasize that clause (f) of SSO 12(1) prescribed misconduct on account of 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, which according to him had laid greater stress on the time period for restricting the offending acts to the working hours at the undertaking unlike the act within the premises of the establishment or in the vicinity as it is the case in the Standard Standing Orders. Thus, unlike the acts within the premises or neighborhood there is greater limitation in 12(1)(f) of SSO restricting the acts to the "working hours at the undertaking". 12. Admittedly, in the present case the incident had taken place outside the premises of undertaking in the premises of Labour Court, Gwalior where the complainant Rajesh Saxena had gone for recording his statements in another case No.631/2002/MPIRA with relation to another employee Vijay Bahadur Singh Chauhan, who alongwith the present petitioner had assaulted Rajesh Saxena and at his behest one FIR at crime No.313/2015 under section 294, 506, 324/34 of IPC was registered against the petitioner. 13. On the fateful day the employer employee relationship between the petitioner and the respondents had not come to an end and there was no occasion for the petitioner on a working day to be present in the Labour Court at that point of time and it cannot be said that it was a sheer chance that some altercation occurred between the complainant and the petitioner. 12- nqjkpj.k [k.Mu esa ÁkFkhZ us lk{; esa dgk fd mlds fo:) jkf'k x.kuk dk vkjksi esa ne u gksus U;k;ky; esa Áekf.kr u gksus dh lksp ij foi{kh us 26-6-15 dk ekjihV dk QthZ vkjksi yxk;k] tcfd ÁkFkhZ mDr frfFk dks foi{kh dEiuh esa lsokjr ugha FkkA 11-5-15 ls mldk xsV can FkkA nqjkpj.k [k.Mu lk{; larks"kÁn ugha gSA xsV can gksus ls deZdkj fu;ksDrk ds laca/k lekIr ugha gksrsA ÁkFkhZ dh lsok lekfIr 9-7-15 dks gqbZA 26-6-15 dks og foi{kh dk deZdkj FkkA ÁkFkhZ dk jkts'k lDlsuk dh lk{; ij ;g dguk gh ugha gS fd 26-6-15 dks og Je U;k;ky; Xokfy;j ugha vk;kA nkos esa Hkh mYys[k ugha gSA mldk ;g dguk Hkh ugha gS fd mDr frfFk dks fot; cgknqj dk Ádj.k fu;r ugha FkkA And since during the working hours (as the petitioner had not brought on record that what were the working hours and whether he was on leave on that day?) he was expected to be present at his work place rather than in Labour Court, the clause “working hours at undertaking” would construe even the acts outside the premises. 14. Thus, it is a clear case of misconduct endangering the life and safety of an employee and could be said to be an act subversive of discipline. The reliance placed by the counsel for the petitioner in the matter of Ambuja Cement Easter Ltd. (supra), is of no avail as therein a scuffle had taken place after the working hours between two persons belonging to two different Labour Unions and there was no disobedience or disrespect to the authorities of the superior employee or demean his status and in that context coordinate Bench of this Court has concluded that the act of the employee would not come under the purview of misconduct as laid down under SSO 12(1)(f). 15. Here it is also pertaining to note that another charge sheet was issued to the petitioner and after completion of the enquiry in that matter vide order dated 22.7.2015 the services of the petitioner were also got terminated which has not been challenged. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, this Court does not deem it fit to interfere in the impugned orders. 16. Accordingly, the petition being sans merits is hereby dismissed. E-copy/certified copy as per rules/directions.