R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) IN all these petitions, the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport corporation is aggrieved by the orders of the Labour Court, setting aside the orders of termination of Badli workers, namely, Badli conductors and Badli drivers, and restoring their names to the Badli Register without back wages. Spl. Civil Applications nos. 2914 and 8566 of 1989 are cross-petitions filed by the Badli workers for getting back wages, which are refused by the Labour Court. ( 2 ) MAIN question involved in these cases is whether the S. T. corporation can remove the names of these Badli workers from the Badli Register without giving them an opportunity of hearing. In all these cases, there is clear allegation of misconduct of misappropriation of S. T. funds by not issuing tickets to the passengers, in most of the cases despite recovery of fare from the passengers. In three of the cases, there are Badli drivers and the allegation of misconduct is of negligence in driving the bus and causing the accident Except in three cases, i. e. in Spl. Civil Applications nos. 3118, 4006 and 6381 of 1989, there is no enquiry. In all the cases, only show cause notices are given, replies are received denying the allegations made in the show cause notices and only on consideration of that reply without further enquiry, the final orders removing the names from the Badli Register are passed. ( 3 ) IN such situation, the Division Bench of this court in case of. Gujarat State Road transport Corporation vs. Chandulal G. Rasadiya 1993 (1) G. L. R. 442, has held that such orders would be illegal and void, being in violation of the principles of natural justice. In that case, this point is dealt with in paragraph 12 and ultimately in paragraph 14, it is held that in all these cases, the conductors had denied the allegations made against them and the S. T. Corporation had not held any enquiry and the orders of the Labour Court restoring the names to the Badli Register are confirmed. Therefore, in these cases also, the same result should follow in view of the same fact situation except in Spl. Civil applications nos. 3118, 4006 and 6381 of 1989. In these three cases, it is contended that there is compliance with the principles of natural justice. These petitioner will be considered later on. Therefore, in these cases also, the same result should follow in view of the same fact situation except in Spl. Civil applications nos. 3118, 4006 and 6381 of 1989. In these three cases, it is contended that there is compliance with the principles of natural justice. These petitioner will be considered later on. ( 4 ) THERE are two cross-petitions, being Spl. Civil Application Nos. 2914 and 8566 of 1989, filed by the workmen for getting back wages. In view of the fact that these were badli workers and they had no right to any employment and in absence of any evidence as to the unemployment during the intervening period, the Labour Court has rightly not awarded any back wages. Therefore, both these petitions deserve to be rejected. ( 5 ) IN Spl. Civil Application no. 3118 of 1989, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement on the ground that there was no enquiry and there was breach of principles of natural Justice. The workman was given a show cause notice and he has filed his reply. He stated that a new route had been given to him. He was not feeling well and despite telling the authorities about that, he was given this duty on a new route. He was issuing tickets after verifying the fare from the fare table. The passengers, who were found without tickets, had boarded the bus on the way while the petitioner was issuing tickets to the other passengers who had boarded the bus from where the bus had started. He also stated that the passengers did not ask for tickets and he had not collected any fare from them. He was also given the opportunity to have the assistance of a friend. After this enquiry, the impugned order has been passed and it is submitted by the Corporation that this is in due compliance with the principles of natural justice. In Spl C. A. No. 400 of 1989, the Labour Court has granted reinstatement on the ground that there was no enquiry and there was breach of the principles of natural justice. The workman was given a show cause notice and even he was given opportunity to file reply. He did file his reply. Thereafter, a personal hearing was held on 16. 10. 86 and he was explained the charge against him of having recovered a sum of Rs. The workman was given a show cause notice and even he was given opportunity to file reply. He did file his reply. Thereafter, a personal hearing was held on 16. 10. 86 and he was explained the charge against him of having recovered a sum of Rs. 4/- from two passengers and not issuing them tickets. He admitted that he had collected that amount and had not issued the tickets, but he tried to explain this by saying that it was due to bona fide mistake, as he was mentally tired after having worked overtime on the previous three days. He was asked whether the reporter should be examined and he declined. He was asked whether he wanted the assistance of any co-worker, and he declined. He was asked whether he wanted any witness to be examined and he declined. In addition, he stated that he would be more careful in future. After this enquiry, the impugned order has been passed and it is submitted by the Corporation that this is in due compliance with the principles of natural justice. Similarly, in Spl. C. A. No. 6381 of 1989, there is a show cause notice issued, but the workman did not care to reply. A personal hearing was kept. The workman was given an opportunity to given his oral explanation. Though he denied the charge, he did admit the fact that he had recovered fare from a group of 10 passengers and had not issued tickets. However, he explained that he was trying to ascertain from the fare table and while he was in the process of issuing tickets, the checking had taken place. In his statement before the reporter at the time of checking, he had stated that he was not having the fare table at all. Therefore, this explanation is clearly false. He was also given an opportunity to have the assistance of a friend. He was also offered all the documents. However, he slated that it was not necessary to give him copies of the same. After the personal hearing, the impugned order has been passed. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the workman submitted that this enquiry cannot be said to be in due compliance with the principles of natural justice. He was also offered all the documents. However, he slated that it was not necessary to give him copies of the same. After the personal hearing, the impugned order has been passed. ( 6 ) LEARNED counsel for the workman submitted that this enquiry cannot be said to be in due compliance with the principles of natural justice. According to the learned counsel for the workmen, the enquiry, consistent with the principles of natural justice requires that all prosecution witnesses should be examined in the presence of the delinquent and the delinquent should be given an opportunity to cross-examine them and thereafter the delinquent should be given an opportunity to examine his own witnesses and lead evidence in defence and only after that, the disciplinary authority should proceed with the question of finding guilt and the quantum of punishment Reliance has been placed on the cases of Departmental enquiries against the delinquent employees. ( 7 ) AS far as departmental enquiry is concerned, the Division Bench in the aforesaid case has already held that the Badli workers are not the employees as defined in the discipline and Appeal Regulations of the Corporation and those Regulation do not apply to them. It has been held that Badli workers are not having any right to hold any post or that they are not having any status as employees of the Corporation. It has been also held that when they are proceeded against on the ground of alleged misconduct, that cannot be done without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, there is no doubt that principles of natural justice have to be followed, but that does not mean that a regular departmental trial has to be held. As observed by the Division Bench in the aforesaid judgment after following the judgments of the Supreme Court, if the workman does not dispute the allegation or does not reply to the show cause notice, it may not be necessary to hold any further enquiry. It is further observed that if he admits some allegations which are serious, then also it may not be necessary to hold the enquiry. ( 8 ) THE principles of natural justice are principles of justice and fair-play. The delinquent has to be given a reasonable opportunity of knowing the allegations made against him, the evidence against him and an opportunity to meet all this. ( 8 ) THE principles of natural justice are principles of justice and fair-play. The delinquent has to be given a reasonable opportunity of knowing the allegations made against him, the evidence against him and an opportunity to meet all this. When he is given a show cause notice specifying the allegations, when he disclosed no defence and when he admits substantially serious facts, such as recovery of fare and non-issuance of tickets, nothing survives for the employer to prove anything further. In such cases, it is not necessary to examine any witness on behalf of the Corporation. The delinquent is given an opportunity to explain and state in support of his defence, including opportunity of leading evidence but if he chooses to rest his case with his statement, it cannot be said that there is any denial of principles of natural justice. The learned Counsel for the workmen relied on the judgment in the case of Meenglas Tea Estate vs. The Workmen a. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1719, wherein it is observed that it is an elementary principle that a person who is required to answer a charge must know not only the accusation but also the testimony by which the accusation is supported and he must be given a fair chance to hear the evidence in support of the charge and to put such relevant questions by way of cross-examination as he desires. And then he must be given a chance to rebut the evidence led against him. The Supreme Court observed that this is the barest requirement of an enquiry of this character and this requirement must be substantially fulfilled before the result of the enquiry can be accepted. It was an enquiry into the misconduct of physical assault on the Manager and Assistant Manager by a number of workmen. Even in such a case, no witness had been examined in support of the charge and straightaway the delinquent workmen were asked questions. In that case, neither was any witness examined nor was any statement made by any witness tendered in evidence. The enquiry was made by the Manager or Assistant Manager, who was the prosecutor and witness and the Judge and there was no opportunity to cross-examine them and they drew upon their own knowledge of the incident and cross-examined the persons charged. The enquiry was made by the Manager or Assistant Manager, who was the prosecutor and witness and the Judge and there was no opportunity to cross-examine them and they drew upon their own knowledge of the incident and cross-examined the persons charged. In these circumstances, the Supreme Court held that this Law travesty of the principles of natural justice. In the present case, as far as the basic facts, which are required to be proved by the department, are concerned, they are admitted by the workmen, namely, recovering of fare and not issuing tickets. Thereafter; there was no question of leading any evidence. ( 9 ) THE learned Counsel for the workmen also relied on the judgment in the case of sur Enamel and Stamping Works Ltd. vs. Workmen, A. I. R. 1963 S. C. 1914. That judgment also is on the nature and procedure of enquiry and how principles of natural justice are to be served. In that case also, a joint enquiry was held against two workmen. Nobody on behalf of the company was examined to prove the charge and only the concerned workman was examined. The reports which were relied were not made available to the workmen and the person who has made reports has not examined and there was no opportunity for cross-examination. This was held to be in breach of the principles of natural justice and the Supreme Court held that there was no enquiry worth the name. This judgment has also no application to the facts of the present case, the learned Counsel for the workmen also relied on the judgment of the Supreme court in the case of S. L. Kapoor vs. Jagmohan and Ors. (A. I. R. 1981 S. C. 136 ). In that case/a Municipal Committee was superseded without giving any opportunity of hearing to the Committee before the order of supersession was passed. In support of that order of supersession, it was contended that as the facts were known, no opportunity was required to be given. The Supreme Court observed that the demands of natural justice are not met even if the very person proceeded against, has furnished the information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual away or for some other purpose. The Supreme Court observed that the demands of natural justice are not met even if the very person proceeded against, has furnished the information on which the action is based, if it is furnished in a casual away or for some other purpose. The supreme Court held that the person proceeded against must know that he is required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him. If that is made known, the requirements are met. ( 10 ) THUS, the requirement of principles of natural justice will depend on the facts of each case and the procedure followed in each case. If all allegations are properly made and disclosed and no reply is filed or no dispute is raised, it may not be necessary to hold any enquiry and/or if reply is filed and substantial facts are admitted, it may not be necessary to lead evidence by the employer and offer witnesses to prove the case, which is already admitted. In such cases, non-examining witnesses by the employer does not result into breach of the principles of natural justice. It is not necessary in all cases that regular and protracted trial should be held. For example, in the aforesaid case of supersession of an elected public body, the Supreme Court held that if the person proceeded against is informed that he is required to meet the allegations which might lead to a certain action being taken against him, that would meet the requirements of natural justice. Principles of natural justice cannot be said to be any fixed and straight-jacket formula, which has to be applied in all cases, irrespective of the nature of the enquiry, the status of the person to be proceeded against, nature of the ultimate order to be passed and the facts which are already admitted. Depending on several such circumstances, the disciplinary authority can come to its own conclusion and that may be consistent with the principles of natural justice. ( 11 ) IN three cases, the facts required to be proved by the employer on collection of fare and not issuing the tickets have been admitted by the workmen. In those circumstances, there was no question of the employer lending evidence and examining witnesses and offering them for cross-examination. Sufficient opportunity has been given to the workmen to defend themselves. In those circumstances, there was no question of the employer lending evidence and examining witnesses and offering them for cross-examination. Sufficient opportunity has been given to the workmen to defend themselves. In view of the fact that reasonable opportunity is given, the principles of natural justice have been complied with and, therefore, the Labour court was clearly in error in coming to the conclusion that these workmen have been penalised without following the principles of natural justice. Therefore, the orders of the labour Court are required to be modified. ( 12 ) THE learned counsel for the workmen submitted that even if the enquiry is legal and proper, the Labour Court has discretion under sec. 11-A to go into the question of quantum of punishment and substitute the appropriate punishment. It is submitted that in these cases, the workmen have already suffered a lot by remaining unemployed for a long time. They have been denied back wages and after the order of the Labour Court, they have been restored to the Badli Register. Not only that, thereafter they have crossed the status of Badli workers and they became daily workers and thereafter they have been given regular time-scale. It is submitted that after having worked satisfactorily for all these years if to-day they are removed from service, the punishment would be too harsh and after such a long lapse of years, it would be unjust to remove them from service, inspite of their subsequent unblemished record. ( 13 ) IN view of all these circumstances of the present continuing service, it would meet the ends of justice if these three workmen arc denied and withheld five increments without cumulative effect. The workmen are proved to have committed the misconduct and ordinarily for such misconduct reinstatement may not be granted and that will be proper exercise of discretion. However, having regard to the aforesaid facts, ends of justice would be met by substituting the punishment of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect. ( 14 ) IN the result, Special Civil Applications No. 3118, 4006 and 6381 of 1989 are allowed and rule is made absolute in each of these three petitions by modifying the award of the Labour Court and imposing a punishment of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect on each of these three workmen. No order as to costs. ( 14 ) IN the result, Special Civil Applications No. 3118, 4006 and 6381 of 1989 are allowed and rule is made absolute in each of these three petitions by modifying the award of the Labour Court and imposing a punishment of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect on each of these three workmen. No order as to costs. Special Civil Applications No. 2914 and 8566 of 1989 are dismissed. Rule discharged. No order as to costs. In rest of the petitions i. e. Special Civil Applications No. 2640, 2838,2839,2975,3734,4013, 4089 and 6384 of 1989, the orders of termination have been held to be illegal and void being in violation of the principles of natural justice and that order of the Labour Court is required to be confirmed. However, it is obvious that the management would be left free to proceed to hold the inquiry in accordance with the principles of natural justice. Mr. H. K. Rathod, learned Counsel for the workmen submitted that after the lapse of so many years and their continuance in service and having reached the status of regular pay seals, it would be hazardous and unjust to allow the employer to hold fresh inquiry and instead of that, it is suggested that in each of these cases also, punishment of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect be imposed and there should be a final end to these includings. In view of that submission of mr. Rathod, the order of the Labour Court is modified and it is directed that five increments of each or these workmen be stopped without cumulative effect and no further proceedings be held in respect of the alleged misconduct. Therefore, in these petitions also, rule is made absolute by partially allowing the petitions and imposing a punishment of stoppage of five increments without cumulative effect on each of the workman. .