JUDGMENT

SAWANT, J.:— Civil Appeals Nos. 185961 of 1990 are preferred by the workmen,Of the Rajasthan State Transport Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Corporation,,) against the decision dated March 8, 1989 of a Division Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan and Civil Appeal No. 1862 of 1990 is preferred by another workman against the decision dated March 15, 1989 of the same Division Bench whereas Civil Appeal No. 1863 of 1990 is preferred by the Corporation against the decision dated March 15, 1989 of another Division Bench of the High Court. Since the issues involved in all these appeals are common, we are deciding them all together.

2. The facts of Civil Appeals Nos. 1859-62 are same. The workers in question were appointed as drivers to drive the roadways buses of the Corporation in the region of Ajmer, Jaipur and Bharatpur. They had put in a long service discharging their duties to the satisfaction of the Corporation. Sometime in 1987, their routine medical examination showed that they had developed defective eyesight and did not have the required vision for driving heavy motor vehicles like buses for which they were engaged by the Corporation, The Corporation, therefore, constituted a medical Board and directed the workers to appear before it for testing their eye-sight. The Board found them -totally unfit for driving heavy motor vehicles. The Corporation issued notices to the workmen to show cause as to why their services should not be terminated since they were. found unfit for driving its buses. The workmen submitted their explanations in which they asked for conducting a second test of their eye-sight and also prayed that in case they were found unfit for driving the buses, they should be given some other job in the Corporation. The Corporation after considering the explanation of the workmen came to the decision that since the workmens eye-sight was not of the standard required to drive the buses they could not be retained in service, and tercminated their services. The orders of termination of services were challenged by the workmen before the High Court by filing individual writ petitions, on two grounds, viz., that the termination amounted to retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and since the retrenchment was effected without following the mandatory provisions of S. 25F of the Act, it was illegal. Secondly, it was urged that there was an agreement between the drivers Union (AITUC) and the Corporation on February 21, 1979 whereunder it was provided that if a driver was found unfit for driving the bus, he should be posted as a helper. In pursuance of the said agreement, the Corporation had also issued a circular on March 10, 1980 providing for giving the job of a helper to an unfit driver. Hence, it was urged that the termination of the services was illegal on that ground as well. The workmen on these grounds not only prayed for the quashing of the orders terminating their services but in the alternative also prayed for direction to the Corporation to offer them the alternative job of a helper. The Corporation, on the other hand, contended that the termination of the workmens services did not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of S. 2(oo) of the Act and hence there was no illegality from which the termination orders suffered. The Corporation also stated that there was no agreement between it and the driversUnion as alleged, and that the circular dated March 10, 1980 was later on withdrawn. Hence, the workmen could not claim any right under the circular. The High Court upheld both the contentions of the Corporation and dismissed the workmens writ petitions. However, while dismissing the petitions, the High Court also added that in case the workmen approached the Corporation for absorbing them as helpers, their cases for such absorption be considered sympathetically if they were otherwise found fit and eligible. It is th