5.Though this Court would normally not venture into discussing the minute details while considering a challenge to the charge memo, in this case, departure is required. This is for more reasons than one. The only delinquency as against the writ petitioner is that he distributed the handbill in the factory premises. This Court went through the contents of the said handbill. It is seen that as many as three workers died in an industrial accident caused within the factory premises. Therefore, in order to emphasise the safety aspects, certain demands had been raised. The first demand is that the Management must implement the periodical man maintenance programme. The next demand is that there should be a proper ventilation provided. Thirdly, safety equipment as per international standard should be provided to the workmen. Lastly, compassionate appointment was sought for the wife of the deceased worker who died in one such industrial accident. Though the distribution of handbill in the factory premises by itself constitutes misconduct, in the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the view that the Management ought not to view it otherwise. A mechanical approach cannot be adopted in such cases. In order to create awareness regarding safety, if the workers do certain acts, the appropriate response is to enhance the safety standards. The response can never be issuing a charge memo.
