( 1 ) THERE are two petitioners in this case and both of them sere employed as teacher in a school the management of which is represented by the first and second respondents herein. It appears that with effect from the term commencing from June 1978 the school management wanted to close down two classes because of want of adequate number of pupils Each petitioner was therefore served with a notice dated February 4 1978 informing him that in view of the above-mentioned circumstances he would stand relieved on and with effect from the commencement of the June 1978 term. It is not in dispute that before terminating the services of the petitioners as aforesaid no reasonable opportunity of showing cause against the action proposed to be taken in regard to him was given to any of the two petitioners as required by sec. 36 (1) (a) of the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ). Each petitioner thereupon made an application under sec. 38 (1) to the Tribunal constituted under the Act. The Tribunal found that the termination of the services of the petitioners being in violation of the mandatory provisions of sec. (36) (1) (a) the orders terminating the services of the petitioners were illegal. The Tribunal also found that prior written permission of the District Education Officer was not taken by the school management as required by Regulation 10a of the Gujarat Secondary Education Regulations 1974 (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) before it took the decision regarding reduction of classes and termination of services of the petitioners and that such approval was accorded by the said officer only on April 11 1978 This aspect of the matter also appears to have influenced to some extent the decision of the Tribunal with regard to the validity of the termination orders. As regards the relief to be granted to the petitioners the Tribunal noted that the relief of reinstatement was not pressed on behalf of the petitioners in view of the fact that in the meantime they had been absorbed in other school under the orders of the District Education Officer and that the relief which the petitioners wanted was confined to back wages for the period during which they had remained unemployed consequent upon the illegal termination of their services. The Tribunal however refused to grant the relief of back wages on the following ground:"both the applicants have accepted jobs in other schools and therefore the question of reinstating them does not arise. Unless an order of reinstatement is passed they would not be entitled to the relief of back wages. They would be entitled to the back wages provided they would be reinstated back in the opponent school. They are not entitled to the same for the period for which they have remained unemployed by way of back wages. At the most they would be entitled to compensation for illegal termination of Services as provided in Regulation 33. However they are not entitled to any compensation under that Regulation. . . . . . . . . Under this regulation (Regulation 43) the provision contained in Regulation 33 would not apply and therefore the applicants would not be entitled to claim any compensation from the opponent-school management. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I am unable to agree with him because the order of back wages follows the order of reinstatement. No order for back wages can be passed without directing reinstatement of the applicants. If the applicants do not pray for the order of reinstatement it would be difficult to pass an order for back wages". The Tribunal under the circumstances dismissed the applications made by the petitioners in so far as the relief with regard to back wages in concerned. It is this decision of the Tribunal which is under challenge herein.

( 2 ) NOW I am unable to appreciate and agree with the reasoning and conclusion of the Tribunal on the question of award of back wages on the facts and in the circumstances of the ca