( 1 ) THE common question involved in these two petitions is whether the State Transport Corporation is required to follow the procedure prescribed for dismissal of its employee under the Discipline and Appeal procedure with regard to a "badli worker" before removing his name from the waiting list prepared for the Badli workers on the ground of grave misconduct by the Badli workers.

( 2 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 89 of 1990 the respondent was given work as a Conductor as Badli worker on 30/03/1982. It is alleged against him that he has not issued tickets to 4 passengers who boarded the bus from village Matira and were go to Kerala on Amreli - Babra Road. For the said misconduct of misappropriation explanation of the respondent was called for by show cause notice dated 1/10/1982 why his name be not cancelled from the waiting list of Badli workers. After considering his reply, his name was cancelled from the waiting list with permanent effect by an order dated 15/10/1982 passed by the competent authority of the State Transport Corporation. Against that order, the respondent approached the Labour Court vide Reference (LCR) no. 265 of 1983. The Labour Court, Rajkot, by its award dated 1 8/07/1989 directed the State Transport Corporation to reinstate the name of the respondent in the waiting list at its original place without any back wages on the ground that the Corporation has not held a full-fledged departmental inquiry against the respondent for his alleged misconduct. That order is challenged by filing Special Civil Application No. 89 of 1990.

( 3 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 129 of 1990 the respondent was assigned duty as a Badli worker as a Conductor on 3/03/1987 in a bus plying between Gandhidham and Anjar. On checking of the bus it was found that the respondent had collected fare from the 8 passengers but he had not issued tickets. It was also found that he had not collected fare from 3 passengers and had not closed the way bill. After issuing show cause notice and considering the explanation of the respondent his name was struck off from the waiting list. Against that order, the respondent approached the Labour Court by way of Reference (LCR) no. 1776 of 1987. The Labour Court by its award dated 9/06/1989 set aside the order of the competent authority and directed that the name of the respondent be reinstated in the original position in the waiting list without back wages. That order is challenged before this Court by filing Spl. C. A. No. 129 of 1990.

( 4 ) IN both these matters, the Labour Court has arrived at the conclusion that before removing the name of the Badli worker from the waiting list for the misconduct, full-fledged inquiry as contemplated by the Discipline and appeal Procedure is required to be followed.

( 5 ) MR. Shelat, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner, vehemently submitted that Badli worker has no right to continue in service and that rules do not provide for holding full-fledged inquiry for removing the name of the Badli worker from the waiting list, and, therefore, the Labour court committed gross error in holding that before removing the name of the Badli worker from the waiting list of the Badli workers, the petitioner was required to follow the procedure applicable to the regular employee of the Corporation is on the face of it illegal and erroneous. For this purpose he has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Prakash Cotton Mills Pvf. Ltd. v. Raslitriya Mills Mazdoor Sangh, AIR 1986 SC 1514, and in the case of S. Govindaraju v. K. S. R. T. C. , AIR 1986 sc 1680.

( 6 ) AS against this, the learned Advocates for the respondents submitted that even though the respondents were Badli workers, as their services were terminated on the ground of misconduct, which would have stigma against them all throughout their life, the petitioner was required to hold full-fledged inquiry before removing their names from the waiting list of Ba