Raghuvir C. J. — This Civil Rule petition is filed by a Union of vehicle drivers in titled Sadou Asom Rajyik Paribahan Nigam Chalak Santha. The members of this Union ply vehicles of a Corporation called the Assam Transport Corporation incorporated on March 1, 1970 under the Central Act 64 of 1950. The State of Assam on December 5, 1987 declared Assam Transport Corporation is a public utility service and further proclaimed for six months from the date of declaration the workers of the Corporation not to go on strike. Notwithstanding the declaration between February 2 to 10 of 1987 the workers of the Corporation were on strike. The drivers also of the Corporation took part in the strike and against them during the strike it is alleged that they want only immobilished the vehicles of the Corporation, damaged night super service vehicles 3506, 3508, 3226 and 3228, gheraoed non participant workers and against some drivers it is alleged they had abandoned the vehicles while the passengers were sitting in the vehicles. 2. The Corporation authorities after the strike was over in exercise of their powers against the guilty drivers terminated four drivers transferred six drivers from one place to another suspended fifty one drivers of the Corporation. All such affected drivers thereupon in a common petition approached the Industrial Tribunal at Guahati in Reference Case 4 of 1988 for their reinstatement and for cancella­tion of transfer orders. The Tribunal it appears passed two orders one on March 21 and the second on May 1,1988. The particulars of the order are not relevant in this case therefore are not set out in this order. On the second day of the order after passing the order the Presiding Officer, Shri C.C.Phukaa retired from service. It is in such on interregum the drivers have filed the instant petition on June 1,1988 with the prayer to reinstate them by order of this Court. Naturally such a petition will be resisted by their employer and indeed it is opposed vehemently by the Corporation in their affidavit-in-opposition and during the debate that followed in this Court. The drivers in this case alleged after retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal no other officer is appointed to preside over the Tribunal. It is also alleged in the entire State of Assam no officer is there to preside over the Tribunals. The drivers in this case alleged after retirement of the Presiding Officer of the Industrial Tribunal no other officer is appointed to preside over the Tribunal. It is also alleged in the entire State of Assam no officer is there to preside over the Tribunals. All Tribunals in Assam are not functioning for no officer is appointed to preside over them. Curiously the averment made by the drivers is found true. To say the least such circumstances leave us much to be desired, 3. In this petition rule issued on June 1,1988. Affidavits-in-opposition are filed. Rejoinders are lodged. We have heard the Advisor of the drivers Union for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the Corporation. The first issue raised on behalf of the Corporation in opposition is should this Court exercise its powers under Art. 226 of the Constitution on the above facts or whether the drivers be directed to seek relief before the Tribunal where their petition is already pending inquiry in Reference Case 4 of 1988. 4. The above two issues turn on the scope of what is called the alternative remedy in hearing cases under Article 226 of the Constitution. The Advisor of the drivers argued it is not out of their volition they have approached this Court. The drivers very much desired to continue proceedings before the Tribunal and its represented on March 23; and on May 1, 1988, they have had obtained "favorable orders" before the Tribunal, but it is argued their attempts for obtaining further relief are frustrated as there are no Presiding Officer are appointed to preside over the Tribunals. In this regard the plight of the drivers is stressed and high lighted. The Advisor argued the drivers are not paid the salaries. They are surviving on their subsistence allowance which it is urged is not sufficient to make their both ends meet. It is argued their employer docs not lift the little finger in the disciplinary inquiry. No progress is made in the inquiry which per se works to their detriment. As to scope of the alternative remedy under Article 226 the Advisor of the wokers and the counsel in this Corporation both cited relevant decisions and propose to discuss the cases before the main issue in the case is answered. 5. The Corporation relied upon (1977) 1 S.C.C. 1 (Jai Singh v§. Union of India and ors). As to scope of the alternative remedy under Article 226 the Advisor of the wokers and the counsel in this Corporation both cited relevant decisions and propose to discuss the cases before the main issue in the case is answered. 5. The Corporation relied upon (1977) 1 S.C.C. 1 (Jai Singh v§. Union of India and ors). In that case while a suit was pending between the parties covering the like issues a writ petition was filed. The High Court dismissed the petition holding the petitioner to seek relief in the suit. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the High Court and held "In our opinion the appellant cannot pursue two parallel remedies in respect of the same matter at the same time". In another case AIR 1983 SC 603 (Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Ltd. vs. State of Orissa) it was held that Act provided ' "adequate safeguard when an appeal is provided", and an appeal is an efficacious alternative remedy for it to be pursued. The Advisor cited two cases one is (1986) 3 SCC 156 in para 103 wherein it is held "As the Corporation is the State they therefore adopted the far more efficacious remedy of filling a writ petition under Art. 226 of the Constitution". The second is in AIR 1968 SC 13 (Collector of Customs, Cochi, vs. A. S. Bava) in that it was held the petitioner having availed of the remedy under section 129 of the Customs Act was debarred from challenging the impugned notification in a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution. To be fair to the learned counsel for the Corporation, he made it clear that his opposi­tion to the maintainability does not raise the question of jurisdiction of this Court. In the instant case he argued workers had approached the Industrial Tribunal and in the hands of Tribunal the workers should seek relief even if the Presiding Officer of the Tribunal had retired and no one is appointed as on today. He suggested workers should then approach the State Government as an alternative measure under section 33-Bofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) for the transfer of the reference. 6. The facts show such a possibility is blocked due to the reasons indicated earlier. He suggested workers should then approach the State Government as an alternative measure under section 33-Bofthe Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act 14 of 1947) for the transfer of the reference. 6. The facts show such a possibility is blocked due to the reasons indicated earlier. Section 33-B deals with the transfer of proceedings, and reads : "(1) The appropriate Government may, by order in writing and for reasons to be stated therein, withdraw any proceeding under this Act pending before a Labour Court, Tribunal, or National Tribunal and transfer the same to another Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal, as the case may be, for the disposal of the proceeding and the Labour Court, Tribunal or National Tribunal to which the proceeding is so transferred may, subject to special direc­tions in the order of transfer, proceed either denovo or from the stage at which it was so transferred : provided that where a proceeding under section 33 or section 33-A is pending before a Tribunal or National Tribunal, the proceeding may also be transferred to a Labour Court, (2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub-section (1), any Tribunal or National Tribunal, if so authorised by the appropriate Government, may transfer any proceeding under section 33 or section 33-A pending before it to any one of the Labour Courts specified for the disposal of such proceedings by the appropriate Government by notification in the Official Gazette and the Labour Court to which the proceeding is so transferred shall dispose of the same." 7. In this case we are concerned with a set of drivers who are suspended pending enquiry. We are not deciding the case of terminated drivers not considering the grievances of the transferred drivers. The drivers who are suspended alone and dealt in this case. True it is they are paid subsisting allowances and if the allegation is true that the inquiry against each of them did not make any progress and such a situation warrants interference by this Court. In the peculiar facts of the case we hold and accept the petition and hold the Civil Rule petition of the drivers is maintainable. 8. The next question is what relief can be given to the drivers. We see the Corporation after its incorporation promulgated Regulations under section 45 of the Act known as The Assam State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulation 1971. 8. The next question is what relief can be given to the drivers. We see the Corporation after its incorporation promulgated Regulations under section 45 of the Act known as The Assam State Road Transport Corporation Employees Service Regulation 1971. This Regulation do not cover disciplinary enquiries. Regulation 82 however recites subjects not covered by the Regulations are to be decided in conformity with the rules, orders etc. applicable to the State Government employees. As to the meaning and effect of Regulation the contestants are not at adidem. The Advisor of the workers argued in the absence of any Regulation covering the disciplinary inquiries it is to be held on rules operate on workers of the Corpora­tion and the Corporation was no jurisdiction to suspend the drivers. Where as the learned counsel for the Corporation urged CCA Rules, 1964 operate on workers. The meaning of the Regulation to our mind is clear and we hold Assam Civil Service (Discipline & Appeal) Rules 1964 cover employees of the Corporation till such time the Corporation promulgated its own rules. 9. Rule 6 of 1964 Rules contemplate suspension therefore the Corporation can suspend the drivers pending enquiry. It is in this regard the Advisor for the workers argued the drivers are suspended between 7 to 9 of February of 1987 and from the respective dates the drivers are surviving on their limited means, added to that there is no tangible progress in the enquiry. Therefore the drivers be ordered to be reinstated. 10. In this regard we see instructions of the State Government are opposite. The State Government in the instructions elucidated the CCA Rules of 1964 and in particular it is ordered suspension is not to be resorted to except to impose major penalties and further statement of allegations should be served in three months from the date of suspension failing which the Government servant concerned should be reinstated. 11. The Advisor for the workers states that barring 11 drivers charges are not served on 40 drivers. Therefore, all the 40 drivers are entitled to be re-instated. It is urged re-instatement of the drivers does not preclude the Corporation to continue the disciplinary enquiry against them. We see force in this contention. 12. 11. The Advisor for the workers states that barring 11 drivers charges are not served on 40 drivers. Therefore, all the 40 drivers are entitled to be re-instated. It is urged re-instatement of the drivers does not preclude the Corporation to continue the disciplinary enquiry against them. We see force in this contention. 12. In case where charges have not been served on the drivers in three months after suspension ( as per instruction) of the State Government) all such drivers are directed to be re-instated. The Managing Director of the Corporation is ordered to scrutinise the papers of the 51 drivers and where charges are not served in three months of suspension orders all such drivers be re-instated. To obviate controversy the drivers who are transferred and the drivers who are terminated from service they may seek relief before the Industrial Tribunal as their cases are not dealt by this Court. The petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs.