The impugned Regulations were held to be valid and had superseded the certified Standing Orders of the Corporation, and the differential treatment of casual or 'badli' employees did not render the Regulations invalid on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution.

( 1 ) THIS is the third round of litigation between the management and employees of the Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation (in short 'corporation') touching the standing orders for taking disciplinary profeeding? against the employees of the Corporation. The first case decided by the Supreme Court is reported, in Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Gopinath Gundachar Char, (1968) 2 LLJ. 144 SC. and the second case, if, reported in general Manager, Mysore State Road Transport Corporation v. Deuaraj urs, (1976) 2 LLJ. 306. Both these cases related to the standing orders touching the service conditions of the employees of the Corporation, more specifically the Standing Orders applicable to disciplinary proceedings against the employees for misconduct.

( 2 ) IN this writ petition, the petitioner has: challenged the validity of part-in of the Regulations known as the Karnataka State Road Transport corporation Servants (Conduct and Discipline) Regulations 1971 (in short, 'regulations') made by the Corporation with the sanction of the State) Go vernment and published in the Karnataka Gazette dated 8-4-1972 by notification No. HD 109 TRE 71 dated 15-3-1972. The petitioner is an employee of the Corporation. For a certain alleged misconduct, by an order dated 18-11-1976, he was kept under suspension pending enquiry into the alleged misconduct. The order further staged that during the period, of suspension he should be paid a subsistence allowance of an amount equal to fifty per cent of his gross pay or wages The order was issued by the competent authority under the Regulations, i. e. , the Deputy General Manager (respondent No. 3 ). Thereafter, by a notice dated 13/ 17-10-1978, the enquiring authority, acting under the relevant Regulations, intimated the final date of hearing and enclosed a copy of the proceedings of the earlier date on which the petitioner had remained absent. On receipt of this notice the petitioner has approached this Court under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India, praying inter alia, for issue of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the provisions of Part-Ill of the Regulations, under which the enquiry was sought to be held against him for the alleged mis conduct and for quashing the entire proceedings instituted, against him by the Deputy General Manager, the third respondent, under Exhibit-C, i. e. , the chargesheet. At the time, of hearing, the, petitioner filed an application, for urging certain additional grounds which are as follows: -"15-A. The notification, No. HD 109 TRE 71 dated, 15th March 1972 issued by the Government was under the Road Transport Corporation act only and the petitioner learns reliably that S. 13 B of the industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act was not at all in the contemplation, of the Government at the time of issue of the said notification. The above Notification, it may please bq seen, has been issued by the Home Department of the I Respondent Government and not by the concerned Labour Department when Section 13-B was not at all in the contemplation of the I Respondent Government When they issued the above said Notification, Section 13-B cannot be, read into the Notification at all. A Notification under Section 13-B was therefore absolutely necessary to validate, the above said Regulations. 15-B. It is further submitted that even while exercising its power in issuing the order dated 15. 3. 72, the, I Respondent, has not at all applied its mind, to the facts and circumstances as well as the contentr and implications of the impugned Regulations, Further, it is submitted that the I Respondent "government has mechanically and without application of mind, has merely accorded sanction to the regulation. 15-C. Regulation 2-A makes a hostile discrimination between employees and employees and vest ar, unguided power in the II respondent Corporation in the matter of selection of employees for special treatment by agreement. The above provision seeks to