JUDGMENT

SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, J.

( 1 ) ). These civil appeals, special leave petitions and civil miscellaneous petitions deal with the question of constitutional validity of the right of the employer to terminate the services of permanent employees without holding any inquiry in certain circumstances by reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice. The facts involved in these matters are diverse but the central question involved in all these is one, i. e. whether the clauses permitting the employers or the authorities concerned to terminate the employment of the employees by giving reasonable notice or pay in lieu of notice but without holding any inquiry, are constitutionally valid and, if not, what would be the consequences of termination by virtue of such clauses or powers, and further whether such powers and clauses could be so read with such conditions which would make such powers constitutionally and legally valid ? In order to appreciate the question the factual matrix of these cases so far as these are relevant for the determination of the aforesaid questions, will have to be borne in mind in the light of the actual legal provisions involved in the respective cases.

( 2 ) ). It will, therefore, be proper and appropriate to deal with the relevant facts in Civil No. 2876 of 1986 first. The appellant herein the Delhi Transport Corporation, is a statutory body formed and established under S. 3 of the Delhi Road Transport Act, 1950 (hereinafter called the Act) read with Delhi Road Transport (Amendment) Act, 1971. The appellant carries out the objects of vital public utility, according to the appellant, i. e. transport of passengers in the Union territory of Delhi and other areas. Respondent 2, Sri Ishwar Singh was appointed as conductor therein on probation for a period of I year in 1970. The probation period was extended thereafter for a further period of one year and thereafter he was regularised in service of the appellant. Similarly, respondent 3 Sri Ram Phal was appointed as Assistant Traffic in charge and after the probation period he was regularised in service. Respondent 4 Sri Vir Bhan was appointed as driver and after completing the probation period he was also regularised in service. It is stated that respondents 2 to 4 became, according to the appellant, inefficient in their work and started inciting other staff members not to perform their duties. They were served with termination notices on 4/06/1985 under Regulation 9 (b) of the Delhi Road Transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Service) Regulations, 1952. On 11/06/1985 respondents 2 to 4 and their Union being respondent 1 DTC Mazdoor Congress, filed Writ Petition No. 1422 of 1985 in Delhi High court, challenging the constitutional validity of Regulation 9 (b ). On May 11, 1986 the Division bench of the High court of Delhi allowed the said writ petition and struck down Regulation 9 (b) of the said Regulations, and directed the appellant to pay back respondents wages and benefits within 3 months from the date of the said judgment. This is an appeal, therefrom, by special leave. The question, therefore, is, was the High court justified in the view it took? It may be mentioned that Regulations 9 (a) and (6 were framed in exercise of the powers conferred under S. 53 of the said Act, which enables the formulation of Regulations. Regulation 9 of the said Regulations, which is material for the present controversy, reads as follows:"9. Termination of service. (a) Except as otherwise specified in the appointment orders, the services of an employee of the authority may be terminated without any notice or pay in lieu of notice: (I) During the period of probation and without assigning any reason thereof. (II) For misconduct. (III) On the completion of specific period of appointment. (IV) In the case of employees engaged on contract for a specific period, on the expiration of such period in accordance with the terms of appointment, (B) Where the termination is made