https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308843 The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court and High Court's interpretation that Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22 limit punishable misconduct to acts committed within the premises or vicinity. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellant company could not take disciplinary action for misconduct occurring outside these areas. The judgment reinforces the principle of strict construction of penal provisions in standing orders and the limited jurisdiction of employers over employee behavior outside the workplace. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000. en-us Thu, 06 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 27 Jul 2023 14:24:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308843 The Supreme Court upheld the Labour Court and High Court's interpretation that Clauses 10, 16, and 30 of Standing Order 22 limit punishable misconduct to acts committed within the premises or vicinity. The appeal was dismissed, affirming that the appellant company could not take disciplinary action for misconduct occurring outside these areas. The judgment reinforces the principle of strict construction of penal provisions in standing orders and the limited jurisdiction of employers over employee behavior outside the workplace. The appeal was dismissed with costs quantified at Rs. 5,000. Case-Laws Indian Laws Thu, 06 Oct 1983 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=308843