PALOK BASU , J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner B. G. Nair has come up to this court under Article 226 of the Constitution of india with the present writ petition praying that dismissal order passed on 8-10-1996 by the managing Director, U. P. Co-operative Spinning Mills Federation Ltd. In pursuance of the disciplinary proceedings in which the petitioner was suspended should be quashed including the proceedings. ( 2 ) SRI Ajit Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that this is the only forum left to the petitioner to get the grievances redressed and he insisted that no appeal lies against the impugned order. ( 3 ) SRI J. N. Tewari, learned senior Advocate assisted by Sri Rakesh Tewari has accepted notice on behalf of the opposite-party No. 1, has refuted the argument and said that under Rule-52 the petitioner can file an appeal, if so advised and that the said Rule-52 is Rule-21 of the Rules of 1978 which the opposite party No. 1 has adopted and is resting on with, for the purposes of managing its affairs vis-a-vis the disciplinary proceedings. ( 4 ) IT may be mentioned here that the controversy boils down to the point whether the Rule 52 relied upon by Sri Ajit Kumar is the one to be made applicable if at all on the facts of the present case or it is the Rule 21 of the Rules 1978 relied upon by Sri Tewari which will apply and determine the proceedings in appeal. The mention of this point is necessary for, the court proposes to dispose of the argument of Sri Ajit Kumar that no appeal lay under Rule 52 and that the petitioner being not an employee of the U. P. State Textile Corporation Limited, the said Rule 52 would not apply as the petitioner continues to be employment of Federation which is a registered body. ( 5 ) SINCE the insistence on behalf of the Federation has been that Rule 21 of the Rule 1978 are still applicable and have been taken recourse to against affected persons, it is hereby directed that the petitioner may file an appeal as if Rule 21 of the old Rules is applicable. ( 5 ) SINCE the insistence on behalf of the Federation has been that Rule 21 of the Rule 1978 are still applicable and have been taken recourse to against affected persons, it is hereby directed that the petitioner may file an appeal as if Rule 21 of the old Rules is applicable. It would be upto the petitioner to raise this question specifically along with merits of the matter and the appellate authority shall dispose of the matter on merits as well as on the aforesaid question, it raised. ( 6 ) THE petitioner is, as requested by Sri Ajit Kumar, granted three weeks; time to file an appeal, if so advised. Sri Tewari has made a statement that the appeal shall be disposed of within two months from the date of filing of the appeal. ( 7 ) THE writ petition consequently is disposed of with a direction that the appeal, if filed by the petitioner shall be disposed of by the appellate authority within two months from the date of filing of the same. ( 8 ) THE parties will bear their own costs. ( 9 ) A copy of this order may be furnished to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of usual charges within three days. .