JUDGMENT :

SUBHASH VIDYARTHI, J.

1. Heard Sri Amar Nath Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioner, Smt. Seema Dixit, the learned Standing Counsel and Sri Anupras Singh, the learned counsel for opposite party no. 2.

2. By means of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has challenged the validity of an award dated 30.10.2006 passed by the Prescribed Authority, Labour Court, U.P., Lucknow in Case No. 103 of 2002 as well as an order dated 10.08.2000 passed by opposite party no. 2 dismissing the petitioner from the service of Telco, which is now known as Tata Motors Ltd.

3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the petitioner was appointed as an operator in the factory of opposite party no. 2 situated at Lucknow on 27.04.1995. On 28.03.2000, several employees of the Company indulged into violent process for pressing their demands and they indulged into arson and loot and held the General Manager of the Company hostage, who could be freed with the intervention of the police. The petitioner was suspended by means of an order dated 30.03.2000, pending disciplinary enquiry.

4. The Suspension order was put in abeyance by means of another