JUDGMENT 1. - Petitioner-Corporation by this writ petition has challenged an order passed by the Labour Court, Bikaner. The respondent- workman was employed by the petitioner- Corporation as conductor on 4 September 1982. By an order, dated 31 March 1983, he was put on probation with effect from 3 October 1982. One of the conditions mentioned in the.appointment order of respondent-workman was that if he is found taking passengers without ticket his services will be terminated without notice. It is further case of the petitioners that on 16 October 1983 on a checking being conducted by officers of the Corporation 16 passengers were found travelling in the bus without ticket. An order was passed by the Divisional Manager, Bikaner, removing respondent 2 workman by order, dated 31 October 1983. 2. The respondent-workman raised a labour dispute and the same was referred to the Labour Court. During the pendency of the dispute before the Labour Court an application was moved by the workman before the Labour Court on 16 September 1991, which was decided by the order impugned. It was ordered by order, dated 9 September 1992, by the Labour Court that in terms of the Standing Orders of the Corporation, the workman should be paid subsistence allowance. 3. Petitioners have challenged the order of grant of subsistence allowance by alleging that the Labour Court could not have travelled beyond the reference made to it and no reference was made to it regarding grant of subsistence allowance. Another argument raised by counsel for the petitioner was that if the Labour Court comes to conclusion that the removal in question was correct then the removal of the workman will take effect from the date the order was passed by the Divisional Manager, i.e., 31 October 1983, and would relate back to this date. It is contended that, therefore, the grant of subsistence allowance will be an illegal grant to the workman. 4. Counsel for the respondent-workman has urged that the termination order passed by the Divisional Manager, dated 31 October 1993, was an order made without holding any inquiry and therefore, the order being in violation of the principles of natural justice is per se non est and thus, the same cannot be sustained. 4. Counsel for the respondent-workman has urged that the termination order passed by the Divisional Manager, dated 31 October 1993, was an order made without holding any inquiry and therefore, the order being in violation of the principles of natural justice is per se non est and thus, the same cannot be sustained. The Labour Court in this case by taking evidence will not be required to adjudicate the question of fairness of inquiry because there was no inquiry held at all. Since the inquiry was not held the question of fairness of inquiry will not be required to be gone into by the Labour Court. All that the Labour Court will have to consider is whether on the strength of the terms contained in the appointment order of workman, his services could be terminated. In this regard, the respondent-workman has pointed out a case decided by this Court on the controversy in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, Kota v. Vijendra Kumar and others, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4056 of 1993, decided on 27 July 1993, and has stated that this Court has taken view that in a case where there was no inquiry, the misconduct was not proved and the order of termination cannot relate back even if the Court takes fresh evidence and hold the workman to have committed the misconduct. 5. In this regard counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance on a judgment in R. Thiruvirkolam v. Presiding Officer and another, 1997 (1) L.L.N. 127. and urged that as the law laid down by this Court in Vijendra Kumar case (vide supra), is based on misinterpretation of certain cases, which have been explained and held to be per incuriam, therefore, the respondent- workman cannot take advantage of the ratio of the aforesaid decision. 6. 1 have given my thoughtful consideration to the rival submissions and have keenly gone through the material before me. In the instant case, no inquiry was held and the misconduct was not held proved by any inquiry. In fact, the respondent-workman was removed by the Divisional Manager, Bikaner, by taking recourse to the terms of his appointment. When the order of termination was passed by the petitioner-Corporation without holding an inquiry, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Thiruvirkolam case, 1997 (1) L.L.N. 127. In fact, the respondent-workman was removed by the Divisional Manager, Bikaner, by taking recourse to the terms of his appointment. When the order of termination was passed by the petitioner-Corporation without holding an inquiry, the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in R. Thiruvirkolam case, 1997 (1) L.L.N. 127. (vide supra), would not be a guiding principle and it will have to be seen that in a case where there is no inquiry held at all and the order of termination was passed, what would be the position. 7. The misconduct was neither stated to the workman nor he was afforded any opportunity of. representation. The order of termination n question was straightway passed by the Divisional Manager of the petitioner-Corporation making a reference to terms mentioned in the appointment order of the respondent-workman. That being the position, the order was ex facie passed without holding any inquiry and therefore, the subject matter of reference is the validity of such termination order. The validity of the termination order passed m violation of the principles of natural justice was one of the considerations which was kept in mind by the Labour Court while passing order Annexure 3. Any comment by this Court on the validity of the termination order will prejudge the reference which the Labour Court is seized of the matter and, therefore, I would refrain myself from commenting upon validity of the termination order in question in these proceedings under Art.226 of the Constitution. However, l would like to observe that a termination which is made without holding any inquiry would not preclude the Labour Court from ordering grant of subsistence allowance to the respondent-workman, more particularly when their Standing Orders provide for the same. 8. In the aforesaid circumstances, 1 do not see any force in the writ petition. The writ petition is meritless and the same is dismissed *******