( 1 ) DEEPAK Nitrite Ltd.-petitioner has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction quashing and setting aside the judgement and award dated 30. 5. 1988 passed by the Labour Court, Baroda, in complaint No. 4/1981. The Labour Court by the impugned order allowed the application of respondent Mr. N. H. Rana and directed the petitioner that Mr. N. H. Rana-respondent workman be reinstated in services and deemed to be continued in service. However, increment for the year 1982-83 may not be given in this behalf. In view of the earlier proceedings in Special Civil Application No. 4496 of 1981 regarding arrears of salary, the court did not pass any order. The court also quashed and set aside the order of dismissal imposed against Mr. Rana in this behalf.

( 2 ) THE facts giving rise to this petition are as under:2. 1 the petitioner Company is manufacturing inflammable and hazardous materials like Sodium Nitrate, Nitrate DNPT and Nitrate Acid etc. In view of the inherent danger in the manufacturing of the said goods, the Company has framed Safety Rules and has strictly prohibited smoking in some part of the factory. 2. 2 the respondent was the General Secretary of the Union on the factory site at the relevant time. One Mr. J. B. Prem was the Vice President of the Union. The relation between the petitioner company and the Union of the workmen were cordial and happy at all material time. A settlement took place for the period 1. 4. 1979 to 31. 3. 1982 governing the conditions of service of the employees governed by the said settlement. Under the settlement the Union was not to make any demand involving financial burden during the subsistence of the settlement. 2. 3 it has been stated in the petition that despite of this settlement, sometime in August, 1980, the Union made unreasonable demand of ad-hoc increase of Rs. 150/and immediate interim relief towards the ad hoc increase. It appears that the Union was having some negotiations with the Management during August to November, 1980. The management did not accede to the demand of ad hoc increase and instant interim relief. 2. 4 it has been stated in the petition that thereafter on 15. 12. 1980 the respondent led some 50 to 60 workers to prevent staff bus going out to leave the staff including lady employees to their respective home and the vehicles of the contractor. This was a sort of gherao. It lasted for about three hours. In connection with this four workmen including the respondent were charge-sheeted and suspended. 2. 5 being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the charge-sheet served on the four workers, the Committee of the Union appears to have taken a decision to strike work. In pursuance of the said decision, on. 6. 1. 1981 in the third shift at 11. 00 p. m. the respondent and the said Mr. J. B. Prem led and incited strike, prevented loyal workers from going on duty by holding out threats and shouting slogans etc. The strike was continued from 6. 1. 1981 to 14. 1. 1981. In the strike, the respondent and Mr. J. B. Prem admittedly took prominent and leading part. 2. 6 the respondent along with six others including the said Mr. J. B. Prem were given charge-sheets dated 16. 1. 1981 for the grave and serious misconduct committed by the respondent. The charges levelled against the respondent were that the respondent has instigated and incited other employees for restoring to illegal and unjustified strike. The respondent has also intimidated /threatened other workmen and supervisory personnel and tried to prevent them from joining duties. The respondent has also obstructed companys contractors personnel and intimidated/threatened them. It was also stated that the respondent has obstructed movement of Companys vehicles and vehicles carrying goods to be brought in and moved out of the factory premises. Thus, the charges are that for specific leading and resorting to