JUDGMENT Aloke Chakrabarti, J.
1. The award dated 5.11.1994 is the subject-matter of challenge here at the Instance of employer. A charge-sheet had been issued against the respondent No. 2 workman relating to claim of leave travel concession and upon completion of disciplinary proceeding by order dated 26.12.1975, the respondent No. 2 workman had been dismissed. The dispute having been referred to. the Labour Court decided the same by the impugned award.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner employer contended that in the impugned, award, there is no finding as to whether the enquiry was fair and proper although an issue to the said effect had been raised as additional Issue No. 3.
3. Further contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner was that the award had been given in favour of the workman solely on the ground that the charges levelled did not come within the provision of clause (c) of paragraph 20 of the Standing Orders and, therefore, the order of dismissal had been quashed with consequential direction.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further contended that in view of the charges levelled, the question of loss of confidence of the employer was there and an additional Issue No. 4 was therefore, raised. But the Labour Court did not decide the said charge and reinstatement had been granted without even deciding the same. In this connection, it was further contended on behalf of the petitioner that even if the question of compensation comes up instead of reinstatement, the aggregate of the amounts paid for a long period by the petitioner employer to the respondent workman month by month in terms of the interim order granted is sufficient amount towards compensation and the workman concerned remains entitled to no further amount towards compensation.
5. Learned counsel for the workman contended that even if enquiry is fair and proper, the Labour Court can Interfere with the quantum of punishment and in support of such contention, reference was made to the case of Workman of M/s. Fire Stone Tyre Rubber Company of India Private Limited v. Management and others, AIR 1973 SC 1227 and the case of Scooter India Limited v. Labour Court, AIR 1989 SC 149.
6. With regard to the contention relating to charges levelled and the provision of paragraph No. 20 (c) of Standing Orders, it has been contended on behalf of workman that as the charge levelled was not governed by the said provision of Standing Order, the said award cannot be interfered with. It has been further contended that submission of claim for leave travel concession did not touch the business of employer as it did not relate to any transaction of the employer with its customers or any third party and therefore the said provision of paragraph No. 20 (c) of the Standing Order did not apply. The law decided in the case of Co-operalive Central Bank Limited v. Additional Industrial Tribunal, AIR 1970 SC 245, was referred to.
7. With regard to the question of applicability of paragraph 20 (c) of the Standing Orders, the said provision of paragraph 20 (c) requires to be considered first and the same runs as follows :
"20. Act and omission of the types mentioned below shall be treated as misconduct ;
*****
(c) Theft, fraud, dishonesty in connection with the business or property of the project.
"That in our leave travel concession bill dated 7.8.1975 you have claimed an amount of Rs. 2.500 towards the reimbursement of expenses in respect of journey from Hardwar to Bombay and back by Taxi No. DLY 82 and attached a Receipt No. 136 dated 22.7.1975 signed by Sri Darshan Singh on the letter head pad of Darghan Tourist Taxi Service, Hardwar, in support of your claim. It has been found that the aforesaid receipt and your aforesaid claim are false."
8. In view of aforesaid language of the charge, now it is to be considered whether the same amounts to fraud or dishonesty in connection with the business of employer.
9. The definition of word "business" has been shown on behalf of the petitioner referring to the Black's Law Dictionary. The same is as follows :
"Business-Employment, occupation, profession, or commercial activity engaged in for gain or livelihood. Activity or enterprise for gain, benefit advantage or livelihood. Union League Club V. Higbsib, 18 Cal. 2d 275. 108 p. 2d 487, 490. Enterprise in which person engaged shows willingness to invest time and capital on future outcome. Doggett V. Burnet 62 App. D.C. 103, 65 F. 2d 191. 194. That which habitually busies or occupies or engages the time, attention, labour, and effort of persons as a principal serious concern, or Interest of for livelihood or profit"
10. Taking into consideration the aforesaid definition and the provision of the Standing Orders, I am of the opinion that the offence alleged need not touch the transaction of the employer with its customer or any third party and fraud or dishonesty, if is in connection with the employment and it is by the employee and is with regard to property of the. employer, such fraud or dishonesty is in connection with the business of the employer and, therefore, the offence alleged comes within the provision of paragraph 20 (c) of the Standing Orders.
11. With regard to question of loss of confidence, I find that an issue had been raised relating to the said aspect before the Labour Court but in the said award, the Labour Court while considering the said issue has stated that the said issue, being Issue No. 5. had been considered along with other issues and award had been passed thereupon. But. upon a consideration of the said award, it does not appear that the question of loss of confidence had at all been considered. The aforesaid aspect having not been considered, it appears that the Labour Court failed to discharge its function is respect of the said issue.
12. In view of the aforesaid findings both with regard to applicability of paragraph 20 (c) of Standing Orders and with regard to decision on loss of confidence, the impugned award is liable to be quashed and the matter requires to be decided afresh by the concerned Labour Court. Therefore, this writ petition is allowed. The impugned award dated 5.11.1984 at Annexure-7 to the writ petition is quashed. The Labour Court concerned is directed to decide the matter afresh in accordance with law following the observation made in the present, judgment. As the matter is a very old one, the labour court is directed to decide the matter within a period of four months from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.