( 1 ) THIS intra-court appeal has been filed by the k. s. r. t. c. (in short, the corporation) against the Order, dated October 7, 1999, passed by the learned single judge in writ petition No. 24048 of 1999. ( 2 ) THE learned single judge, while disagreeing with the view taken by the labour court under its award, dated may 6, 1999 (annexure d), has directed for reinstatement of the respondent-conductor but by denying back wages. ( 3 ) IT is not in dispute that some time in 1994, the respondent was engaged as a daily-age conductor pursuant to the Provisions contained in regulation 10 (5) of the k. s. r. t. c. (cadre and recruitment) regulations, 1982. During the tenure of his service as a daily-wager, he was found to have misconducted himself 26 times in relation to issue of tickets and pilferage of the corporation's revenue. Ultimately, again on March 27, 1997, when he was conducting the bus, he was found to have failed to issue tickets to a group of 10 passengers who were travelling from nanjangud to malahalli contrary to the "issue and start" rule. The appointing authority issued a show-cause notice requiring him to explain his default. Clause (3) of the show-cause notice, which was exhibited as m-1 before the labour court, clearly referred that though the respondent was engaged as a daily wage conductor, still he had involved himself in 22 pilferage cases and was therefore subjected to minor penalties, and had failed to improve his performance. The said fact of imposition of minor penalties, was not disputed by the respondent either before the appointing authority or before the labour court. Keeping in view the said circumstances, the appointing authority, being divisional controller, k. s. r. t. c. , Mysore division, by his Order, dated September 25, 1997 (annexure a), ordered for removal of name of the respondent from the list of daily-wage conductors. ( 4 ) THE respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the labour court which on appreciation of the entire facts and materials placed before it, rejected the same. This order having been challenged in writ jurisdiction of this court the learned single judge under the impugned order has directed for reinstatement as noticed above. ( 4 ) THE respondent thereafter raised an industrial dispute before the labour court which on appreciation of the entire facts and materials placed before it, rejected the same. This order having been challenged in writ jurisdiction of this court the learned single judge under the impugned order has directed for reinstatement as noticed above. From the order of the learned single judge, it does not appear that it was brought to his notice that the removal of the respondent was not by way of punishment, but it was for the reason of unsatisfactory performance of his duties, and it was at best termination simpliciter and therefore, the jurisdiction under Section 11-a of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (in short, the act), could not have been invoked. ( 5 ) REGULATION 10 (5) of the k. s. r. t. c. (cadre and recruitment) regulations, 1982, reads as under:"10. Procedure for appointment. (1 ). . . . to 4 (5) a selected candidate waiting for being appointed regularly in accordance with these regulations may be appointed as a temporary employee before such regular appointment against a short-term vacancy or as a substitute in place of regular employee under suspension pending enquiry or suspension as a measure of punishment or on leave for a period not less than one month but not exceeding 3 months. A selected candidate is also liable to be engaged as a badli worker on a day-to-day basis in any vacancy caused by the absence of any employee and he will be paid for the number of days he works as such either daily or once in a month". ( 6 ) THE above regulation was considered by the Supreme Court in the case of s. Govindaraju V. Karnataka State Road Transport Corporation and another AIR 1986 SC 1680 : 1986 (3) SCC 273 : 1986-ii-llj-351 in a somewhat similar situation as is appearing in the present case. The Supreme Court did not disturb the finding of this court that the removal of a badli worker engaged under regulation 10 (5) of the said regulations does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the act. The Supreme Court did not disturb the finding of this court that the removal of a badli worker engaged under regulation 10 (5) of the said regulations does not amount to retrenchment within the meaning of Section 2 (oo) of the act. But their lordships took the view that, in para 6, at page 353:"there is no dispute that the appellant's services were terminated on the ground of his being found unsuitable for the appointment as a result of which his name was deleted from the select list, and he forfeited his chance for appointment. Once a candidate is selected and his name is included in the select list for appointment in accordance with the regulations, he gets a right to be considered for appointment as and when vacancy arises. On the removal of his name from the select list, serious consequences entail as he forfeits his right to be employed in future. In such a situation, even though the regulations did not stipulate for affording any opportunity to the employee, the principles of natural Justice would be attracted and the employee would be entitled to an opportunity of explanation though no elaborate enquiry would be necessary". ( 7 ) IT was pursuant to the said declaration of law by the Supreme Court that the respondent was given an opportunity of hearing before removal of his name from the list of conductors. Therefore, it was quite clear that the removal of the name of the respondent which was not pursuant to any disciplinary proceedings can tantamount to inflicting of any punishment in any such proceeding. In that view of the matter, Section 11 -a of the act had absolutely no play. ( 8 ) EVEN otherwise, as found by the appointing authority as also by the labour court, after due notice to the respondent, his services were found to be wholly unsatisfactory and keeping in view his repeated lapses in relation to collection of fares and proper accounting through waybills the corporation could not have been faulted in removing his name from the list of select candidates. ( 9 ) IN the above view of the matter we find ourselves unable to sustain the order passed by the learned single judge which is accordingly set aside. The orders passed by the appointing authority and the labour court stand restored. ( 9 ) IN the above view of the matter we find ourselves unable to sustain the order passed by the learned single judge which is accordingly set aside. The orders passed by the appointing authority and the labour court stand restored. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY, this appeal is allowed with no order as to costs. --- *** --- .