JUDGMENT

K. JAGANNATHA SHETTY, J.:— We grant special leave and proceed to dispose of these appeals.

2. These appeals preferred against the decision of the Allahabad High Court raise common questions as to the scope of Regns. 17(2) and 17(3) of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation Employees (Other Than Officers) Service Regulations, 1981 (the Regulations).

3. The respondents were appointed as drivers in the erstwhile U. P. Government Roadways. Upon the formation of the U. P. State Road Transport Corporation (Corporation) they were absorbed in the services of the Corporation. The Corporation has framed the Regulations inter alia prescribing medical test to drivers every year for the purpose of assessing their suitability for the job. Pursuant to these Regulations, the Managing Director of the Corporation issued a circular dated December 19, 1986 stating that all drivers should be medically examined and those found unsuitable either because of ill-health or poor eye-sight, be not given duty and their services be dispensed with. This was followed by another circular dated March 12, 1987 by which the Managing Director directed the Regional Managers to terminate the services of the drivers who are medically found unfit to drive the vehicles. It was also directed in the circular that such employees whose services are dispensed with should be paid benefits like retrenchment compensation under S. 6(N) of the U. P. Industrial Disputes, Act.

4. In the beginning of 1987, all the respondents were subjected to medical examination and it was found that their eye-sights were defective. In view of the medical report, the Corporation discharged them with immediate effect by paying them one month salary in lieu of notice and also retrenchment compensation under the Industrial Disputes Act.

5. The respondents challenged their retrenchment by means of writ petitions before the Allahabad High Court. The High Court has allowed the writ petitions directing the Corporation to offer alternative jobs to the respondents.

6. The Corporation being aggrieved by the decision of the High Court has appealed to this Court.

7. Regulations 17(2) and 17(3) read as follows:

"17(2) A person, appointed to the post of driver, will be required to undergo medical test, particularly vision test, every year or at such intervals as may be prescribed by the General Manager from time to time.

17(3). The service of a person who fails to pass the fitness test, referred to in the sub-regulation (2), may be dispensed with:

Provided that the persons, whose services are so dispensed with may, in the discretion of the Corporation, be offered alternative job."

8. Regulation 17(2) requires that the drivers have to undergo medical test particularly vision test every year, or at such intervals as may be prescribed by the General Manager of the Corporation. Regulation 17(3) has two branches. The first branch provides power to the Corporation to remove the driver from the servibe who fails to pass the medical test. The second branch of Regn. 17(3) though styled as proviso also appears to be an independent branch. It is not proviso. The proviso ordinarily carves out an exception from the general rule enacted in the main provision. However, sometimes the insertion of a proviso by the draftsman is not strictly adhered to its legitimate use and it may be in substance a substantive provision adding to.and not merely excepting something thing out of or qualifying what goes before it. The proviso with which we are concerned in Regn. 17(3) does not carve out an exception from the general rule contained in the first branch. It is an independent and substantive provision providing discretion to the Corporation to offer an alternative job to the retrenched driver. This offer is to be made after the exercise of power under the first branch of Regulation 17(3). There is, therefore, no doubt that the second branch of Regn, 17(3) is a substantive provision and not in the nature of a proviso to first branch