G.P. Singh, C. J.-

l. The petitioner No. 1 Sunil Kumar Azmi was employed as Lower Division Clerk and petitioners 2 and 3, namely Hazarilal and Manbahadur, as Security Guards, by the M. P. Road Transport Corporation. Their services were terminated by orders passed on 21st November 1974 under Regulation 69 of the Service Regulations, 1964; read with the Standard Standing Order 11. The petitioners challenged the orders terminating their service by separate applications to the Labour Court. All these applications were consolidated and decided by the Labour Court by an order dated 14th December 1977. The Labour Court held that the termination was based on misconduct and as there was no regular domestic enquiry held before the orders of termination were passed, the orders were invalid. The Labour Court directed reinstatement of all the petitioners but did not allow back wages. The Corporation went up in revision to the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court, by its order dated 6th July 1978, held that the termination was based on unsatisfactory work and loss of confidence although no such reasons were recorded at the time of passing of the orders of termination and their communication to the petitioners. The Industrial Court did not agree with the Labour Court that the orders of termination were founded on misconduct. However, the learned Member-Judge of the Industrial Court who passed the orders on 6th July 1978; had some doubts on the question whether the omission to give reasons as required by Standard Standing Order 11(b) could be cured by disclosing the reasons in the written statement before the Labour Court. The learned Member, therefore, formulated a question on this point and referred it for decision to a larger Bench. The question so referred was heard by the President and the Member-Judge who, by their order dated 2nd February 1978, decided that the omission to give reasons as required by Standard Standing Order 11 (b) can be cured by disclosing the reasons in the written statement and that the Labour Court can examine whether the reasons so given justify the order of termination. Thereafter the revisions filed by the Corporation were allowed by the Member-Judge on 15th February 1979 holding the orders of termination as valid. It may here be mentioned that the petitioners had also filed revisions against the disallowance of back wages by the Labour Court. These revisions were dismissed by the same order. The petitioners then filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the order dated 15th February 1979 passed by the Industrial Court.

2. The first contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the Member-Judge who decided the revisions did not give any further hearing to the petitioners after the President and the Member Judge decided the question referred by the Member-Judge by their order dated 2nd February 1979. It is true that no further hearing as contended above was given to the petitioners or the Corporation by the Member• Judge, but this omission in our opinion does not invalidate the final order of the Industrial Court passed by the Member-Judge. In the order dated 6th July 1978 by which the Member-Judge had referred a question to a larger Bench he had decided all other questions arising in the revisions and argued before it. The learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any question which had remained undecided by the order dated 6th July 1978 excepting the question which was referred to be decided by the Bench. The learned counsel for the petitioners, however, submitted that had the Member-Judge given a further hearing before passing the final order, the petitioners could have raised a new point that the orders of termination were invalid because of non-payment of retrenchment compensation as required by section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Now, this point admittedly was not raised in the revisions filed by the Corporation or the revi