In this application under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has challenged the order dated 22.10.84 terminating his service by the Managing Director of the Assam Tea Corporation Limited. 2. Facts : The petitioner was appointed as Assistant Manager sometime in the month of May, 1978. He was confirmed as Assistant Manager wef 15.11.78, under order of the Managing Director, dated 29.11.78. But, under the impugned order, the Managing Director terminated the services of the petitioner on the ground that his service was no more required. The petitioner was paid three months' pay in lieu of notice in the exercising of power under Regulation 46 of the Assam Tea Corporation Limited Service Regulation. The petitioner has challenged the Regulation 46 as well as the order of termination. 3. In the instant case, no inquiry was held in view of Regulation 46. Regulation 46 runs as follows : "The services of a permanent/regular employee may be terminated by giving him three month's notice or salary in lieu thereof." At this stage it would be helpful to refer to a decision of the Supreme Court reported as Delhi Transport Corporation vs. DTC Mazdoor Congress, AIR 1991 SC 101 . In that case the Regulation 34 of the Delhi Transport Corporation was challenged. Regulation 34 runs as follows : " In case of a permanent employee, his services may be terminated by serving three months' notice or on payment of salary for the corresponding period in lieu thereof." The Supreme Court struck down the regulation by holding that power to terminate the services of. a permanent and confirmed employee by issuing a notice without assigning any reason in the order and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the employee before passing the impugned order is wholly arbitrary, uncanlised and unrestricted violating principles of natural justice as well as Article 14 of the Constitution. The decision of the Supreme Court cited above governs the present case and, therefore, the Regulation 46 and order of termination are liable to be quashed. 4. With regard to the back wages, in Piaralal vs. State of Punjab, 1990 (Supp) SCC 754, the Supreme Court has held that back wages for the period the employee had not worked could not be allowed. 4. With regard to the back wages, in Piaralal vs. State of Punjab, 1990 (Supp) SCC 754, the Supreme Court has held that back wages for the period the employee had not worked could not be allowed. In Maharaja Sayajirao University Baroda vs. RS Thakar, (1988) 1 SCC 638 , the Supreme Court allowed the claim to, on reinstatement after termination being found illegal, back wages less the amount earned in another profession, on the facts and circumstances of that case. In Vidya Dhar Pande vs. Bidyut Grih Siksha Samity, (1988) 4 SCC 734 , the Supreme Court directed to pay 50% of the salary and allowances from the date of termination till reinstatement in service. Therefore, it depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case whether an employee is entitled to back wages, and the question of back wages is left open at the wisdom of the Corporation. 5. In the result, the impugned Regulation 46 and the order of termination are quashed. The petitioner shall be reinstated forthwith. 6. The petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs.