ORDER : 1. Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 227 of 2021 has been preferred by the management, challenging the order dated 14.06.2021 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. (L) No. 3152 of 2020, whereby the writ petition preferred by the Management for quashing the award dated 20.08.2018 in Reference Case No. 01 of 2013 was dismissed. Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 229 of 2021 has been filed by the Management against the judgment dated 14.06.2021 passed in W.P. (L) No. 1154 of 2019, whereby the writ petition filed by the workmen was allowed in part by the learned Single Judge awarding 50% of the back wages from the period of termination/dismissal till reinstatement. 2. As both the issues arise out of same proceeding, thus, both these letters patent appeals are being disposed of by this common order. 3. The respondent-workman was an employee of the appellant-management. He was junior associate. On 1st June, 2012, management was distributing packets of sweets to its employees to celebrate the increase in production of the company. The management levelled an allegation against the workman that he and one Ranjit Singh instigated the other co-employees to return the sweet packets as the quality was not good. Due to such action of the respondent-workman, the programme of distribution of sweets got stalled by the management for an hour. Further, it has been alleged that the workman and his colleagues arranged pastries from outside and distributed the same amongst the workmen/employees. As per the management, aforesaid act of the workman is an act of indiscipline for which a chargesheet was issued to the workman on 12.01.2012. The workman submitted his explanation, which was not accepted, thus, the management decided to hold domestic enquiry. One, Advocate, Mr. A.N. Sinha was appointed as an Enquiry Officer. Enquiry was held on 20.03.2012, when one Mr. S. Majumdar represented the management and the workman was present. The enquiry was concluded and a report was submitted by the Enquiry Officer, wherein the Enquiry Officer found the charges levelled against the petitioner to be substantiated. On the basis of enquiry report, the management, vide order dated 03.09.2012, dismissed the workman from service. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur for answering the reference. The terms of reference is as under: (i) Whether, dismissal from service of Sri Kripa Shankar Tiwari, Ex. On the basis of enquiry report, the management, vide order dated 03.09.2012, dismissed the workman from service. The workman raised an industrial dispute, which was referred to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur for answering the reference. The terms of reference is as under: (i) Whether, dismissal from service of Sri Kripa Shankar Tiwari, Ex. P. No. 0871, Workman, M/s Tata Steel Processing and Distributing Limited, Bara, Agrico, Jamshedpur is justified? If not, what relief he is entitled to? 4. The Labour Court, at the preliminary stage, held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and the principles of natural justice has not been followed. After holding the same, the Labour Court gave opportunity to the management to lead evidence on the merits of the case. The management challenged the preliminary order in W.P. (L) No. 3043 of 2017 but, during pendency of the writ petition, the reference was answered in favour of the workman with a direction to reinstate him without back wages. 5. The workman approached this Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. (L) No. 1154 of 2019 with a prayer to modify the award to the extend that he is entitled for full back wages. The management preferred W.P. (L) No. 3152 of 2020 challenging the award of reinstatement. 6. Learned Single Judge, after hearing the parties, dismissed the writ petition filed by the management whereas partly allowed the writ petition filed by the workman by granting 50% back wages from the date of termination till his reinstatement. 7. Be it noted that the award of reinstatement has been given effect to and the workman was already reinstated. 8. Learned Senior Counsel, Mr. V.P. Singh, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that when the charges were proved against the workman, then the Tribunal could not have set aside the order of termination. As per him, learned Single Judge acted beyond his jurisdiction while dismissing the writ petition filed by the management. As per him, since the Tribunal has also found that the workman was guilty of misconduct to the extent that he had persuaded the employees not to accept the sweet packets, the Tribunal could not have passed an award to reinstate the workman. As per him, since the Tribunal has also found that the workman was guilty of misconduct to the extent that he had persuaded the employees not to accept the sweet packets, the Tribunal could not have passed an award to reinstate the workman. His further contention is that the learned Single Judge also misdirected itself in allowing the writ petition by granting 50% back wages, when the Tribunal has accepted that the misconduct has been proved. He argues that under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, the Tribunal could not have set aside the punishment of dismissal to reinstate. He also submits that in absence of the pleading that the workman was gainfully employed, both the Tribunal and learned Single Judge has erred in granting 50% back wages. He refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Phool Chand (Dead) through Legal Representatives, (2018) 18 SCC 299 . 9. By challenging the judgment passed in W.P. (L) No. 3152 of 2020, learned Senior Counsel submits that the learned Single Judge has committed error by endorsing the findings of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper and is perverse as per Clause 26 of the Standing Order. As per him, an Advocate can very well be appointed as Domestic Enquiry Officer and no Rules/Standing Order has been violated by appointing an Advocate as the Enquiry Officer. He refers to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. K.V. Rama Reddy, (2006) 11 SCC 645 . He submits that since there is no specific bar in the Standing Order for appointing an Advocate as the Enquiry Officer, the appointment of an Advocate as the Enquiry Officer is valid. 10. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the workman submitted that the dismissal of the workman was bad. The Tribunal and the learned Single Judge have found that there is violation of principles of natural justice in conducting domestic enquiry, thus, held that the domestic enquiry was not fair and proper. When a domestic enquiry is held to be improper, the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to invoke Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal, thereafter held that the punishment was absolutely disproportionate. When a domestic enquiry is held to be improper, the Tribunal was well within its jurisdiction to invoke Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Tribunal, thereafter held that the punishment was absolutely disproportionate. He submits that the Labour Court has the power to set aside the findings. He further argues that as per the Standing Orders of the Company, if the Standing Order of the Company is read properly, only conclusion which can be arrived at is that an advocate cannot be appointed as Enquiry Officer and it is only the Officer of the Company, who can be appointed so. Since in this case, the domestic enquiry was conducted by an Advocate, the same violates the Standing Order of the Company, which goes to the root of the case vitiating not only the enquiry, but the consequent punishment order. 11. After hearing the parties, we have gone through the records and have also gone through the award. The charge against the workman is that when the sweets were being distributed amongst the workmen, he alongwith another protested, taking a plea that the quality of sweets was bad and they arranged for pastries and distributed amongst the workmen. The management concluded that the action of the respondent-workman is a misconduct and is an act to bring disgrace and maligning the image of the Company. The Tribunal, in paragraph 12 of the award, had arrived at a finding that the action of the workman to the extent of persuading the employees not to accept the sweet is a misconduct for which the workman is guilty, but the rest part, i.e., causing annoyance, disgrace and maligning the image of the company is nothing but on the basis of conjectures and surmises. On the basis of the aforesaid misconduct, workman could not have been dismissed from service. We also find no illegality in the aforesaid finding. Awarding a punishment of dismissal on the aforesaid charge is absolutely disproportionate. 12. The Tribunal, thereafter, has held that the workman is entitled for reinstatement, but without back wages as the non-payment of back wages during the period which he was kept out of service is also a punishment for the proved misconduct. Awarding a punishment of dismissal on the aforesaid charge is absolutely disproportionate. 12. The Tribunal, thereafter, has held that the workman is entitled for reinstatement, but without back wages as the non-payment of back wages during the period which he was kept out of service is also a punishment for the proved misconduct. Learned single Judge, while deciding the aforesaid issue, has held that the domestic enquiry itself was bad and against the principles of natural justice and is in violation of the Standing Orders, thus, ordered that the workman is entitled for only 50% back wages. The main ground for arriving at the said conclusion is that an Advocate was appointed as an Enquiry Officer, but the Standing Order of the Company does not provide for appointment of an Advocate. 13. To deal with the aforesaid issue, one has to first quote the relevant portion of the Standing Order. Copy of the Standing Order has been produced today during the course of hearing, when the learned counsel for the appellant / management submits that Clause 26 of the Standing Orders provides for the procedure to deal with cases of misconduct. Clause 26a provides for holding an enquiry as per the procedure by an “Officer or Officers” appointed for the purpose. For the purpose of better understanding it is necessary to quote the relevant portion of Clause 26a of the Standing Orders, which reads as under: “26. Procedure dealing with case of misconduct (a) If a misconduct is alleged against an employee, the Management, before taking action against the employee, will hold an enquiry as per procedure by an Officer or Officers appointed for the purpose except in those cases of unauthorized absence when an employee is in jail or custody connected with the case not pertaining to the Company. The employee charged with misconduct will be afforded a reasonable opportunity for explaining and defending his actions. Any such enquiry may relate to alleged acts of misconduct of several employees wherein the opinion of the Management, it is convenient to hold such an enquiry for several employees together.....” 14. This standing order is in terms of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1947, thus, is statutory in nature. Same applies to all the employees of the appellant-management. Clause 5 of the Standing Orders is the definition clause, but the word ‘officer’ has not been defined. This standing order is in terms of Section 7 of the Industrial Employment (Standing Order) Act, 1947, thus, is statutory in nature. Same applies to all the employees of the appellant-management. Clause 5 of the Standing Orders is the definition clause, but the word ‘officer’ has not been defined. Clause 26 only provides that the enquiry must be held by an Officer/Officers appointed for the purpose. In the entire Standing Order, there is nothing to suggest as to what would the term ‘Officer’ mean in connection with the Standing Orders. One thing is apparent that Clause 26 does not provide for appointment of an Advocate as an Enquiry Officer. In this case, admittedly, an advocate was appointed as the Enquiry Officer and the said Advocate is not the employee of the management. 15. After going through the entire standing order, we find that Clause 58 mandates for observance of rules. It provides that all officers and supervisory staff shall be held personally responsible for proper and faithful observance of the said rules made under the Factories Act. This is one clause where the word ‘officer’ has been used in the entire Standing Order. Thus, as per the aforesaid provision, the officers are also vested with the responsibility and duty to observe the provisions of the standing order and the Factories Act. It is only an employee, in whatever capacity he may be, be a workman, a managerial staff like an officer, can be made responsible to adhere to the standing orders. The Standing Orders of the Company is followed only by the employees of the Company in whatever capacity he may be. Thus, the word ‘Officer’ in terms of the Standing Orders will be a person, who is an employee of the organization/company. 16. The word ‘Officer’ has been dealt with by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of NKGSB Cooperative Bank Ltd. vs. Subir Chakravarty and Others, (2022) 10 SCC 286 . Paragraph 40 of the said judgment reads as under: 40. The expression “officer” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edn. reads thus: “officer. (14c) 1. Someone who holds an office of trust, authority, or command. In public affairs, the term refers especially to a person holding public office under a national, state, or local government, and authorized by that government to exercise some specific function. The expression “officer” as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary, 11th Edn. reads thus: “officer. (14c) 1. Someone who holds an office of trust, authority, or command. In public affairs, the term refers especially to a person holding public office under a national, state, or local government, and authorized by that government to exercise some specific function. In corporate law, the term refers especially to a person elected or appointed by the board of directors to manage the daily operations of a corporation, such as a CEO, President, secretary, or treasurer. Cf. DIRECTOR(2).” 17. From the aforesaid explanation, it is clear that he has to be appointed by the Board of Directors to manage the daily operations of the corporation. Thus, there has to be direct employer-employee relationship between the Company and the person appointed as an Officer. No doubt an Advocate is an Officer, but only in relation to the Courts as he is Officer of the Court and not an Officer of any Organisation/Company. Thus, in this case, the ‘Officer’ should be read as the Officer of the Company and not the Officer of the Court. 18. In this case, admittedly, the Enquiry Officer is an Advocate. Admittedly, the Advocate is an outsider and is not an employee of the organization/company. Thus, it cannot be said that he is an ‘Officer’ for purposes of the Standing Orders. Since there is a specific provision that the enquiry has to be conducted by an ‘Officer’ and in the aforesaid paragraph, we have interpreted that the ‘Officer’ must be an employee of the organization/ company, in the instant case, the Company could not have appointed an outsider as an Enquiry Officer. 19. Reliance was placed by the appellant on a judgment of a Single Bench of this Court in the case of The Workmen Represented by Bihar Colliery Kamgar Union vs. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, 2003 (2) BLJR 1245, wherein the Single Bench of this Court has held that there is no embargo against the management to appoint an outsider for conducting enquiry. Anybody who is appointed for conducting enquiry becomes enquiry officer. 20. We humbly disagree with the aforesaid finding on the ground stated in the preceding paragraph. When specifically it has been provided in the Standing Orders that enquiry has to be held by an ‘Officer’, the same must be held by an ‘Officer’ of the Company. Anybody who is appointed for conducting enquiry becomes enquiry officer. 20. We humbly disagree with the aforesaid finding on the ground stated in the preceding paragraph. When specifically it has been provided in the Standing Orders that enquiry has to be held by an ‘Officer’, the same must be held by an ‘Officer’ of the Company. If the Standing Order provided only for holding an enquiry and the enquiry to be held by any “appropriate person” without specifying ‘Officer’ then appointment of Advocate, a non-employee could have been justified. Further, from Clause 26, we find that the Standing Order does not expressly provide for appointment of an outsider as an Enquiry Officer. 21. Learned counsel for the appellant also referred to the judgment in the case of National Seeds Corporation Ltd. vs. K.V. Rama Reddy, (2006) 11 SCC 645 . After going through the said judgment, we find that the said case relates to representing a delinquent workman in the proceeding and this is not in relation to appointment of an Enquiry Officer. Thus, it is not applicable in the facts of this case. 22. Thus, we find that the learned Single Judge has correctly held that the Enquiry conducted by the Officer is against the Rules and thus, there is violation of the provisions of the Standing Orders and principles of natural justice. 23. So far as back wages is concerned, we find that learned Single Judge has arrived at a finding that the termination of the services of the workman is illegal and there was illegality in conducting the departmental enquiry. Thus, the learned Single Judge has directed payment of 50% of back wages to the workman. Learned Single Judge has taken note of several judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including the case of Deepali Gundu Surwase vs. Kranti Junior Adhyapak Mahavidyalaya, (2013) 10 SCC 324 , which has dealt with the proposition of payment of back wages where the dismissal is illegal. Considering all these aspects, the learned Single Judge has modified the award and directed the Management to the workman only to the extent of 50% of the total back wages. 24. Learned counsel for the Management, challenging the judgment of back wages relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Phool Chand (Dead) through Legal Representatives, (2018) 18 SCC 299 . 24. Learned counsel for the Management, challenging the judgment of back wages relied upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Jaipur vs. Phool Chand (Dead) through Legal Representatives, (2018) 18 SCC 299 . After going through the said judgment, we find that the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment has also allowed back wages to the extent of 50%. 25. Thus, we find no illegality in the impugned orders passed by the learned Single Judge. Thus, we do not find any merit in both these Letters Patent Appeals filed by the management. Both these Letters Patent Appeals are, accordingly, dismissed. 26. There shall be no orders as to costs. Urgent certified copies of this order shall be issued as per the Rules.