( 1 ) THE workman Noormahmad Pirbhai (Second respondent) was serving in the Sarni Department of the Ahmedabad New Textile Mills (Now a unit of National Textile Corporation) at all material times. He was also a representative of the Textile Labour Association (First respondent) in the Sarni Department of the Mill in 1981 Two show cause notices first dated 15/09/1981 and the second dated 21/09/1981 containing allegations of misconduct by the said workman were served upon him by the management. Immediately thereafter he was placed under suspension with effect from 22/09/1981 In the first show cause notice Exhibit 10 dated 16/09/1981 it was alleged that he proceeded on sick leave from 10/08/1981 to 20th August 1981 and on n 21/08/1981 forwarded certificates of sickness and fitness from E. S. I. Corporation but did not report for work and remained absent without leave with effect from 21/08/1981 and later produced a certificate of Dr. C. S. Ciao dated 14/09/1981 to the effect that he was unfit for work with effect from 29/08/1981 to 14/09/1981 It was therefore. alleged that even though he was found at to work as per the E. S. I. Certificate between 21/08/1981 and 2 8/08/1981 he did not report for work and remained absent without leave and without any intimation whatsoever to the Department. It was further alleged that during the said period he was seen outside the gate of the Mill-Company which went to show that he did not require rest as mentioned in Dr. Ciaos certificate. He was therefore called upon to show cause why he remained absent without leave with effect from 21/08/1981 and why he remained absent even after 14/09/1981 So far as the second show clause notice Exhibit 11 dated 21/09/1981 is concerned the charges levelled against him were: (i) he behaved rudely with his superiors; (ii) remained absent without leave from time to time and once for a continuous period of sixteen days; (iii) his production was less than average and he was responsible for inciting other employees to slow down the production; (iv) tried to help his relative with a view to suppressing his involvement in a theft case and (v) he was found indulging in collection of funds for the Union and doing business within the precincts of the Mill-Company. On these charges a departmental inquiry was initiated against him and the inquiry officer submitted a report holding him guilty on all counts. The petitioner-Company therefore dismissed him from service. Against this dismissal the Textile Labour Association preferred an application under Sec. 79 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act 1946 (hereinafter called the Act) challenging the legality and propriety of the order passed by the employer against the workman.

( 2 ) THE application was heard by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court Ahmedabad. Evidence was led to show that the inquiry was not legal and proper but subsequently a purshis Exhibit 13 dated 24th December 1982 was tendered stating that the workman did not dispute the processual legality of the inquiry conducted against him but according to him the findings recorded by the inquiry officer were perverse and the punishment meted out to him was unwarranted. The Labour Court therefore concluded that the departmental inquiry insofar as procedural aspect is concerned must be taken to be proper and then proceeded to consider the other two submissions namely whether the findings recorded by the inquiry officer were perverse and whether the punishment of dismissal from service was warranted. The Labour Court then proceeded to examine the evidence pertaining to each charge and came to the conclusion that there was sufficient evidence in support of the finding that the workman had remained absent without leave from 21/08/1981 to 28th August 1981 In otheher words the allegation in the show cause notice Exhibit 10 insofar as it related to absence without leave during the aforesaid period was held established. So far as the five charges leveled