However, now the Supreme court in the year 2005 LLR page 360 in the caseof Mahendra and Mahendra Ltd., Vs. N.V. Naravade held that usage of abusiveand filthy language against superior officer held that did not call for lesser punishment than dismissal.
4.SLEEPING WHILE ON DUTY :
The courts are of the opinion in the earlier days that the workmen generally work for the long hours and sleeping while on duty was not considered as a major misconduct warranting the dismissal unless it is an habitual act.
In this connection,a judgement of supreme court in the year 1960 in the case of Nirmal Sen Gupta Vs National Carbon Company Ltd. is relevent. Whereas now the Supreme court in the case of Bharat Forge Company Vs.Uttam Manohar reported in 2005 LLR 210 held that sleeping while on duty asmajor misconduct warrants punishment of dismissal.
5.ASSAULTING THE SUPERIORS:
The courts earlier taken a view that in some of the cases that assaulting thesuperior is not a major misconduct and considered the mitigating circumstancesused to grant relief in favour of the workers. Whereas now the Supreme court in the case of Bharat Cooking Coal Ltd.,etc., Vs. Bihar Colliery Comgar Union reported in 2005 LLR 373 SC held thatassaulting the superior is a major misconduct and also observed that the standtaken by the earlier courts that victim did not die because of the injuries is not amitigating circumstance. Similar view was also taken by the Hon’ble SupremeCourt in the case of Usha Breco Mazdoor Sangh Vs The management of UshaBreco Ltd and another reported in 2008 LLR page no.619 SC
Strike was considered to be the weapon in the hands of the workmen and theunion to pressurize the management and to get their demands settled. This wasthe approach of the judiciary in the earlier days and a reference can be made tothe case of B.R. Singh Vs Union of India reported in 1990 Lab. Ic, page 389 S.C.The Supreme Court in a landmark judgement relating to TamilnaduGovernment Employees strike held that they have no statutory or constitutionalright to go on strike as per the case reported in 2003 LLJ page 275.