M. R. CALLA, J. ( 1 ) RULE Mr. Y. S. Lakhani waives service on behalf of respondent in Special civil Application No. 9478 of 1996 and Mr. H. K. Rathod waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondent in Special Civil Application No. 1592 of 1997. On the request of the parties these matters are taken up for final hearing right today. ( 2 ) IN both these petitions Award dated 13. 2. 1996 passed by the Labour Court, Rajkot in Reference 1870 of 1984 is under challenge at the instance of the concerned workman and at the instance of the corporation respectively. ( 3 ) THE services of workman Shri Desur Devraj Dangar who was Driver had been terminated by Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation in exercise of powers conferred on it under Regulation 61 of the Gujarat State Road Transport Employees Services regulation, 1961. The concerned workman raised an industrial dispute. The adjudication in this dispute has resulted into impugned Award whereby the relief or reinstatement with continuity of service and without any backwages has been granted. The workman is aggrieved against the denial of the backwages and Corporation is aggrived against the order or reinstatement with continuity of service. Mr. Rathod submits that backwages could not have been denied because Regulation 61 of the Gujarat State Road Transport employees Services Regulations, 1961 under which the services of the workman had been terminated has been found to be in para materia with Rule 9 (b) of the Delhi Road transport Authority (Conditions of Appointment and Services) Regulations, 1952 by the supreme Court and on that basis Civil Appeal No. 3912 of 1996 as had been filed by gujarat State Road Transport Corporation against one Pankaj Kumar Dinkarrai Jani of amreli had been dismissed. It is the contention of Mr. Rathod that once the termination under Regulation 61 is held to be illegal, consequences of reinstatement with continuity of service and full backwages must follow even if it is found that the opportunity was afforded to the Corporation before the Labour Court to adduce oral evidence on allegation of misconduct against the workman. He has further pointed out that the Labour Court has found that the charge is not proved. ( 4 ) MR. He has further pointed out that the Labour Court has found that the charge is not proved. ( 4 ) MR. Y. S. Lakhani on the other hand has argued that there were serious allegations against the workman who had taken away Corporations vehicle without any authority and the same had been misused by taking it out of depot without permission and without entry in the concerned record. He has also argued that the finding of the Labour Court that the charge was not proved is erroneous and therefore it was not at all a case for relief of reinstatement with continuity of service and the backwages have been rightly denied because through out the period of enforced idleness the concerned workman, was in gainful employment. ( 5 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for both the sides. Looking to the facts and circumstances of the case and when the provision of Regulation 61 of the Gujarat State road Transport Employees Services Regulations, 1961 have been considered to be in violation of Arts. 14, 16 and 19 of the Constitution of India by the Supreme Court the impugned order of termination of the services of the concerned workman cannot be sustained in the eye of law. In the ultimate analysis of the things even if such termination is found to be unlawful and the Corporation wants to base termination on the allegation of misconduct, such termination must precede proper inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed in the regulation. In this view of the matter, it will be appropriate to sustain relief of reinstatement with continuity of service in favour of the concerned workman and leave it open for the Corporation to hold proper inquiry against the concerned workman on the allegation of misconduct for which the inquiry was required to be held. So far as the relief of backwages is concerned it must depend upon the ultimate result of the inquiry which the Corporation may decide to hold against the workman after reinstating him in service in terms of the Award. So far as the relief of backwages is concerned it must depend upon the ultimate result of the inquiry which the Corporation may decide to hold against the workman after reinstating him in service in terms of the Award. ( 6 ) UPSHOT of the aforesaid discussion is that the Special Civil Application No. 9478 of 1996 and Special Civil Application No. 1592 of 1997 are decided in the terms as under :[1] The concerned workman Shri Desur Devraj Dangar shall stand reinstated and relegated to the position which he was holding at the time of termination of his services as if the termination had never been ordered. [2] It will be open for the Corporation to hold inquiry in accordance with the procedure prescribed under Regulation on such allegation of misconduct as the Corporation may frame against the concerned workman in holding this inquiry and in recording the findings of this inquiry nothing observing or said in the impugned Award shall come in the way of the Corporation or the concerned workman and the findings shall be recorded solely on the basis of the evidence which will be recorded by Inquiry Officer during the course of the inquiry which will be held now. [3] So far as the backwages are concerned, the relief or otherwise to the concerned workman shall depend upon the ultimate result of such inquiry meaning thereby that in case the concerned workman is fully or partly exonerated or held guilty for any of the allegation, he will be entitled to such backwages as may be admissible under the Regulations of the Corporation. [4] If at all the Corporation decides to hold inquiry against the concerned workman the same shall be expedited within a period of six months and the concerned workman shall cooperate in expediting the proceedings. ( 7 ) HENCEFORTH the rights and obligations of the parties shall be governed by the direction as aforesaid in respect of the impugned award which is under challenge in both these petitions. ( 8 ) BOTH these Special Civil Applications are decided in the terms as aforesaid and the rule is made absolute accordingly in both these matters. No order as to costs. Direct service is permitted. .