ORDER K.K. Dube, J. l. By this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution the petitioner seeks to challege the order of the Industrial Court Madhya Pradesh, Indore by which the petitioner was refused back wages though the order as to reinstatement had been maintained, 2. At the relevant time, the petitioner was a driver in the services of the respondent No.1. On 17-11-1969 he was posted at Morena Depot and his duty was on Morena Bhind route. He took the Corporation's bus in the morning from Morena to Bhind. On his return from Bhind, he left the bus at the Morena Bus-stand and went away without making any report as to the condition of the bus. One of the mechanics of the M.P. State Road Transport Corporation discovered that some smoke was coming out of the engine. The mechanic naturally examined the engine and found that the head of the bus was found to have been cracked and its pistons were also damaged. The mechanic soon reported the fact to the works Supervisor who, in turn, reported it to the Depot Manager, Morena. The works Supervisor examined the engine of the bus in question and made a report of the incident. According to the estimates a damage to the tune of Rs.1,200 had been caused. The Depot Manager was also of the opinion that the damage was due to the negligence of the petitioner. The said bus was brought from Ujjain a week before for being plied on Morena Bhind route. Earlier to that date the engine of the bus did not give signs of any trouble. Even on that date, in the morning when the bus was taken out from the Bus Stand for its journey to Bhind, it was alright and no difficulty had been reported. According to the respondent No.1, the petitioner had left the bus in a damaged condition without informing and even the fact that the engine was damaged was within his knowledge. The petitioner was, therefore, charge-sheeted for misconduct punishable under clause 12(1) (d) and (n) of the Standing Orders. 3. The petitioner gave his explanation of departmental enquiry followed in which statement of witnesses were recorded. The petitioner did not produce any witness in defence. The Enquiry officer found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The petitioner was, therefore, charge-sheeted for misconduct punishable under clause 12(1) (d) and (n) of the Standing Orders. 3. The petitioner gave his explanation of departmental enquiry followed in which statement of witnesses were recorded. The petitioner did not produce any witness in defence. The Enquiry officer found that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. The Depot Manager, after receiving the report, gave a show cause notice and after perusing the petitioner's explanation terminated his services by his order dated 19-2-1970 holding that the charges have been proved and that they fell under misconducts under clauses 12(1) (d) and (n) of the Standing Orders, The petitioner's appeal against the order of teriniuation was rejected. The petitioner then after giving an approach notice under section 31(3) read with section 34 of the Madhya Pradesh Industrial Relations Act moved the Labour Court. 4. The Labour Court held that the domestic-enqiry was vitiated and allowed the respondent to prove the alleged misconduct. The Lab our Court also permitted the petitioner to adduce evidence before it. By an order dated 24-8-1974, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages. The respondent 1 and 2 then moved the State Industrial Court. The State Industrial Court held that the main question to be seen in the case was whether the conduct of the petitioner was wilful so as to attract clause 12(1) (n) of the Standing Orders. The petitioner had put in cold water in the engine while he was on the drive and had not informed the condition of the engine at the depot. 5. The petitioner's defence was that there was no arrangement for supply of hot water and it was necessary that cold water should be put in the engine. As against this the respondents pleaded that a driver was expected to know that it will cause serious damage to engine if cold water was in the engine while the vehicle was on the run. The fact that other drivers were also putting cold water in the engine was no answer to the misconduct committed by the petitioner nor could it be ignored. His conduct, it was urged, was grossly negligent and was Wilful. He had also not pointed out the defects which had been developed in the bus when he had reached the destination. His misconduct caused the loss of nearly Rs.1100. 6. His conduct, it was urged, was grossly negligent and was Wilful. He had also not pointed out the defects which had been developed in the bus when he had reached the destination. His misconduct caused the loss of nearly Rs.1100. 6. The State Industrial Court observed that the government of the misconduct under 12 (1) (d) and 12 (1) (n) of the Standing Orders was the doing of an act wilfully. An injury is caused wilfully where the act which produced it was intended to have that effect. There should be knowledge that the act will probably result in an injury and there is an utter disregard of the consequences Wilfulness, it was observed, imports premeditation or knowledge and consciousness that injury is likely to result from the act done or for the omission to act and strictly speaking, is not covered by 'negligence' which conveys the idea of inadvertence. To constitute wilful injury, there must be design, purpose and intent to do wrong and inflict the injury. To constitute wanton negligence, the person doing the act must be conscious of his conduct, and, although having no intent to injury, must be conscious or taken to have been conscious from his knowledge of surrounding circumstances, and existing conditions that his conduct will naturally or probably result in injury 7. The State Industrial Court was of the view that the driver must be presumed to know that cold water if repeatedly put in the engine the engine would get cracked. His action, therefore, appeared to be grossly negligent inasmuch as he had put cold water in the way in the engine without trying to find out as to whether the addition cold water was doing some damage to the engine or not. But all this would amount to being grossly negligent and may, at best, be held to be a border line case as far as wilfulness is concerned. The driver, in the circumstances of the case, could not be held guilt; of having caused wilful damage to the engine though he has to be held as grossly negligent. He could not be considered to have wilfully caused damage to the property of the Corporation under clause 12 (1) (n) of the Standing Orders. The driver, in the circumstances of the case, could not be held guilt; of having caused wilful damage to the engine though he has to be held as grossly negligent. He could not be considered to have wilfully caused damage to the property of the Corporation under clause 12 (1) (n) of the Standing Orders. The State Industrial Court however, refused back wages to the petitioner as in its view, his conduct was grossly negligent and that he had not brought the fact to the notice of his superiors when he reached the end of the journey on reaching Morena. 8. The Standing Orders 12 (1) (d) and 12 (1) (n) read as under: "12 (1) (d): Wilful disobedience of any lawful or reasonable order of a superior involving safety of any person or property or other matter having an adverse effect upon the work or wages of another employees." "12 (1) (n): Wilful damage to work in process or to any other property of the undertaking." The petitioner cannot be held to be guilty under clause 12 (1) (d) as no order has been brought to our notice of which the petitioner could be held to have disobeyed and which involved the safety of another person or property or was a matter having adverse effect upon the work or wages of the other employees. 9. The only question that would need consideration is whether the petitioner could be held to have violated Standing Order 12 (1) (n) ? Undoubtedly damage has been caused to the engine which could be directly attributed to the action of the petitioner in putting cold water in the engine while coming to Morena. Wilfulness would be attributed to the petitioner if he had intentionally done something which in express terms, has been forbidden. It undoubtedly implies an awareness that by doing the act, he would be causing damage or an awareness that he was doing a thing which was not legal, though he took a chance that no evil consequence would follow. Looking from any point of view, we do not think that such wilfulness could be imputed to the petitioner in the instant case. We, therefore, think that the two Courts below rightly held that his conduct was not wilful and did not violate the Standing Order 12 (1) (n). 10. Looking from any point of view, we do not think that such wilfulness could be imputed to the petitioner in the instant case. We, therefore, think that the two Courts below rightly held that his conduct was not wilful and did not violate the Standing Order 12 (1) (n). 10. Coming to the question of back wages, the two Courts found that the petitioner's conduct in the matter could not be said to be entirely without blame In any case, he had tried to shield his guilt and had not informed the authorities of the position that the engine had got cracked. There could have been a further damage to the engine and a complete breakdown of the bus if the defect not been detected. In the circumstances of the case, he was not entitled to full back wages. In our view since he has been wholly exonerated of the charges under Standing Order 12 (1) (n), he should be allowed some back wages. We think that this is a fit case, as held by the Labour Court, for award of half back wages. We, therefore, direct that the petitioner be paid half back wages. 11. In view of the findings above, the Misc. Petition No. 224 of 1975 filed by the Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation entirely fails. The same would be dismissed but without order as to costs. As regards this petition it partly succeeds as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. The outstanding amount of security deposit shall be refunded to the petitioner.