JUDGMENT 1. - In all the aforesaid appeals, common questions of law and fact arise and as such they are decided by one common judgment. All the plaintiff-respondents were in the service of appellants as Conductors. The appellant No. 2, vide its different orders imposed penalties on the plaintiff-respondents. The plaintiff respondents filed separate suits, praying that the orders passed by the appellant No. 2, imposing penalty be declared null & void. The trial Court decreed the suit of the plaintiffs- respondents and held that the orders imposing penalty on the plaintiffs-respondents were null and void being contrary to the regulations framed by the appellant No. 1 and were also contrary to the principles of natural justice. The appellants filed regular first appeals, which were also dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur. The decrees passed by the learned Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, have been challenged in these appeals. 2. The first submission of the counsel for the appellants is that the Civil Court had no jurisdiction to try the suit. In support of his arguments, he placed reliance on a judgment of the Apex Court in the R.S.R.T.C. and another etc. etc. v. Krishan Kant etc. etc., A.I.R. 1995, S.C. 1715 . It us true that in the aforesaid judgment the Apex Court held that where the dispute involved recognition, observance or enforcement of any of the rights or obligations created by the I.D. Act, the only remedy was to approach the forum created by the said Act. In Para No. 34 of the said judgment the Apex Court held the principle laid down in the said judgment should apply to all pending matters except where decrees had been passed by the Trial Court & the matters pending in appeal or second appeal as the case may be. 3. In the present appeals the suits of the plaintiffs respondents were decreed by both the lower courts. In such circumstances, the present appeals fall under exception as mentioned in Para No. 34 of the aforesaid judgment. 4. The second submission of the counsel for the appellants is that in some of the cases the lower courts awarded back-wages to the plaintiffs-respondents. His submission is that the back wages can not be awarded to the plaintiffs-respondents unless it is proved that the plaintiffs-respondents were not in gainful employment. 4. The second submission of the counsel for the appellants is that in some of the cases the lower courts awarded back-wages to the plaintiffs-respondents. His submission is that the back wages can not be awarded to the plaintiffs-respondents unless it is proved that the plaintiffs-respondents were not in gainful employment. I do not agree with the submission of the counsel for the appellants. The appellants neither raised this point in the trial court nor led any evidence. Once the orders imposing penalty have been found to be illegal and termination orders of services of the plaintiffs are set aside, the plaintiffs are entitled to back wages. The argument is covered by the judgment of the Apex Court in State of U.P and another v. Atal Behari Shastri and another, 1993 Supp. (2) SCC 207 . The findings recorded by both the lower courts that the orders imposing penalty on the plaintiffs-respondents are contrary to the regulations framed by the R.S.R.T.C. and also against the principles of natural justice, are findings of fact. No substantial question of law is involved in all these appeals, hence they are dismissed with costs of Rs. 2000/- in each case. However it is made clear that if the appellants want to make fresh enquiry against the plaintiffs respondents, they are free to do so. *******