( 1 ) THE present petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India by the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation (for short the Corporation) challenging the judgment and award dated 13. 3. 1989 recorded by the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court at Bhavnagar in Ref. (LCB) No. 501/87, under which the learned Presiding Judge directed reinstatement of the present respondent in service of the appellant-Corporation on his original position without backwages. It seems that the respondent above named, was working as a reliever watchman in the employment of the petitioner and his services have been terminated without any inquiry and without any notice. Therefore, he applied for reference and the reference was made to the said Labour Court. Before the said Labour Court, the present petitioner had contended that the respondent was not a workman and he was only a badali worker. It was also contended that on 13. 8. 1985, the present respondent was required to work on duty as watchman. That he occupied the drivers seat of a S. T. motor vehicle and drove the same unauthorisedly, with the result, the vehicle dashed against a wall which was seriously damaged. That some enquiry was made with respect to the said incident and at the end of the enquiry, the petitioner had taken a decision to terminate the services of the respondent. Accordingly, the services were terminated, which came to be challenged in the aforesaid reference. After hearing the parties, the learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court found that the termination was without enquiry and without any show cause notice and, therefore, there was apparent violation of principles of natural justice. Therefore, the learned Presiding Judge of the Labour Court allowed the said Reference and directed reinstatement of the respondent in the employment of the Corporation as aforesaid.

( 2 ) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment and award of the Labour Court, the petitioner has preferred this petition before this court. It has ben mainly contended that the petitioner was merely a badali worker and, therefore, no full-fledged enquiry was undertaken. That therefore, the order of termination could not be challenged before the Labour Court and the Labour Court has seriously erred in directing reinstatement in the employment of the petitioner without backwages. The petitioner has prayed for issue of writ, order or direction for quashing and setting aside the aforesaid order of the Labour Court dated 13. 3. 1989.

( 3 ) RULE was issued at the first instance and Mr M D Rana, learned Advocate has appeared on behalf of the respondent pursuant to the service of rule. I have heard the learned Advocates for the parties and have perused the papers.

( 4 ) LEARNED Advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent was simply a badali worker and, therefore, no formal enquiry was required to be undertaken and, therefore, the process undertaken by the petitioner cannot be treated to be illegal. However, learned Advocate for the respondent has contended that at least show cause notice should have been issued to the respondent to explain the position. That this has not been done and, therefore, even if the respondent was a badali worker, he was entitled to principles of natural justice which have not been observed in the present case and, therefore, according to the argument of the respondent, the Reference has been rightly answered by the Labour Court and this Court cannot interfere with the said findings of the Labour Court.

( 5 ) IN support of the said argument, the respondent has relied upon the decision reported in 1993 (1) GLR 442. Here also it has been observed that it is true that badali workers are not employees of the Corporation in view of Regulation 15. Therefore, Discipline and Appeal Rule is not required to be followed in case of badali workers.

( 6 ) HOWEVER, it is further observed in that judgment that the badali workers are not havi