Hon’ble Mrs. Sangeeta Chandra, J.—This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the Award dated 19.12.2015 passed by the respondent No. 1 whereby the respondent No. 1 has granted reinstatement alongwith full back wages and allowances to the respondent No. 2 from the date of termination to the date of superannuation.

2. Heard Shri V.K. Upadhyay, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Ritwik Upadhyay for the petitioner and the learned counsel for respondent No. 2, workman, Shri Pankaj Tripathi.

3. The facts of the case as mentioned in the pleadings on record are to the effect that the respondent No. 2 was engaged in the petitioner’s factory at Renukoot temporarily for a period of five months w.e.f. 10.7.1982 to 9.12.1982. Thereafter, also he was engaged temporarily from time to time. He was taken on probation w.e.f. 13.6.1996 and was allotted Quarter No. P 764, Hindalco Colony under the licence from the petitioner company. During April and May, 2001 there occurred several incidents of dacoity/robbery in Hindalco Colony in which Security Department of the Hindalco Company investigated and revealed the involvement of the son of respondent No. 2 and the role of the respondent No. 2 in giving help to his son and his accomplices.

4. As such, the Chief Security Officer of the petitioner informed the General Manager (P & IR) of the situation by his letter dated 24.5.2001 and recommended that the respondent No. 2 should not be permitted to stay in the licensed Quarter No. P 764. The respondent No. 2 was served with a charge-sheet on 7.6.2001 containing the charge that Shri Virendra Kumar Rawani @ Billu @ Dilawar son of Shri Ram Hari, respondent No. 2 with the help of his accomplices committed dacoity on 9.5.2001 at 8:30 PM in Quarter No. Junior - 2 allotted by the company to Shri Mohan Lal Mishra and threatened his family members by pointing country made pistol and Shri Ram Hari (respondent No. 2) actively participated in saving his son Virendra Kumar Rawani @ Billu @ Dilawar from the clutches of the police. Because of this dacoity/robbery an atmosphere of fear and terror prevailed in Hindalco Colony having an adverse effect on other employees and at the work place.

5. Apart from this, Shri Ram Hari (respondent No. 2) had acted in contravention of the conditions of licence of the Company’s Quarter No. P-764 and that he had made the said quarter a place for sheltering criminals. This had resulted in a great risk to the peace and security of the residential colony of the company. The licence of the said quarter was cancelled on 5.6.2001 with a direction to the Shri Ram Hari (respondent No. 2) to hand over the vacant possession of the same, but disobeying the said direction he was illegally occupying the said quarter. It amounted to misconduct under Clause 21 (a) (h) and (y) of the Standing Orders of the Company.

6. The charge-sheet, in fact, contained two charges. The first charge was relating to involvement of the respondent No. 2 in the criminal activities of his son. The second related to the respondent No. 2 using the Quarter No. P-764 for harboring criminals in violation of the conditions of the said licence and his non vacation of the same despite cancellation of the such licence on 5.6.2001.

7. The respondent No. 2 submitted a reply. But the same was found unsatisfactory in the domestic inquiry and the Inquiry Officer had submitted his report on 12.3.2002 finding the respondent No. 2 guilty of the charges. The petitioner company sent a show-cause notice with a copy of the inquiry report to the workman on 21.3.2002. A reply was submitted by the workman. Finding the reply unsatisfactory the order of termination of service was passed on 9.5.2002.

8. The respondent No. 2 raised an industrial dispute which was referred by the State Government for adjudication to the Labour Court, Allahabad. It was registered as Adjudication Case No. 18 of 2003 which remained pending at Allahabad till 2008, when the Government