ORDER: The Pallavan Transport Corporation Limited, Madras as the writ petitioner has filed this writ petition against the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Madras and an individual Workman S. Chellaperumal praying to issue a writ of certiorari calling for the records in I.D.No.487 of 1987 on the file of the first respondent herein and to quash the said award dated 29.11.1990 and grant further reliefs. 2. In the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition, the petitioner would submit that the second respondent workman was employed as a driver in the petitioner’s Corporation and was assigned duty in Fleet No.B-583 plying on route No.48; that on 26.6.1976 while he was driving the said vehicle owing to his rash and negligent driving an accident occurred on Konnur High Road resulting in a pedestrian aged about 6 years being injured; that a criminal complaint had been filed against the petitioner and taken on file in C.C.No.29097 of 1976 on the file of the Court of Metropolitan Magistrate. Madras and he got acquitted, ultimately in that case that simultaneous disciplinary action was also instituted against the second respondent workman by issue of a charge memo dated 1.8.1976, requiring the second respondent to submit his explanations which he did on 24.10.1976; that as the said explanation was not found satisfactory the petitioner ordered a domestic enquiry to be held into the charges and the same has been conducted wholly in conformity with the principles of natural justice with full participation of the workman and with due opportunity; that he declined to make use of the same and filed only a statement before the enquiry officer and on the procedures having been completed, the enquiry officer in consideration of all the facts and circumstances contained in the material records ultimately concluded that the workman was guilty of rashness and negligence in his driving which is an act of misconduct in the certified standing orders of the petitioner Corporation and therefore submitted his findings dated 9.12.1986 holding the second respondent guilty of the charges. 3. 3. The further case of the petitioner Corporation is that after careful perusal of the finding of the enquiry officer and in further consideration that there were no extenuating circumstances issued a second show cause notice on the second respondent calling upon him to show cause why he should not be removed from the service of the petitioner Corporation; that since the explanation dated 24.12.1976 offered by the second respondent was not satisfactory, the petitioner Corporation removed the workman from service by its proceeding No.23540/PS(T)5/ PTC/76, dated 11.3.1977, that in arriving at the decision to remove him, his past records were also taken into consideration wherein he was found guilty in as many as eight accidents. 4. It would further be contended on the part of the petitioner that the second respondent filed a W.P.No.2755 of 1979 seeking direction to the Government refusing to refer the dispute for adjudication and since the same got dismissed by this Court order dated 23.2.1983, he preferred a writ appeal in W.A.No.1012 of 1983 before the Division Bench of this Honourable High Court which ultimately allowed the same by order dated 16.2.1987, consequent to which the industrial dispute was raised by the second respondent to his non-employment which was referred for adjudication and taken on file by the first respondent as I.D.No.487 of 1987; that before the first respondent Labour Court on the part of the petitioner two witnesses M.W.1 and M.W.2 have been examined respectively the Traffic Inspector and the Assistant concerned, but the first respondent overlooked their evidence and passed its award in I.D.No.487 of 1987 on 29.11.1990, thereby setting aside the order of the writ petitioner dated 11.3.1977 removing the second respondent from the service of the writ petitioner further directing the reinstatement of the second respondent with backwages and continuity of service; that aggrieved by the said award passed by the first respondent aforementioned, the petitioner Corporation has come forward to file this writ petition on grounds as brought forth in the grounds of this writ petition seeking the relief extracted supra. 5. No counter has been filed on the part of the second respondent to counter the points of writ petition, but only the learned counsel for the second respondent Sri D.Hari Paranthaman would argue his case on instructions said to have been imparted to him. 5. No counter has been filed on the part of the second respondent to counter the points of writ petition, but only the learned counsel for the second respondent Sri D.Hari Paranthaman would argue his case on instructions said to have been imparted to him. On the part of the learned counsel for the petitioner besides adhering to the averments of the writ petition it would further be submitted that the further opportunity sought for adducing additional evidence before the Labour Court had been denied and it is essential when the Labour Court arrived at such conclusion that the appreciation of evidence on the part of the enquiry officer is perverse, a further opportunity to the employer to adduce additional evidence is necessary and hence it would be pointed out that inspite of having prayed for such an opportunity on the part of the writ petitioner employer it was denied by the Labour Court. In the context the learned counsel would cite a judgment of the Supreme Court of India, in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P.Mundhe, (1975)2 L.L.J. 379 , wherein dealing with the question, when a domestic enquiry conducted by the employer is found by the Labour Court to be defective is there any duty cast upon the Labour Court to give an opportunity to the employer to adduce additional evidence before it and whether failure to do so will vitiate the award, the Apex Court citing very many decisions would ultimately arrive at the conclusion extracted hereunder: "We are, therefore, clearly of opinion that when a case of dismissal or discharge of an employee is referred for industrial adjudication the Labour Court should first decide as a preliminary issue whether the domestic enquiry has violated the principles of natural justice. When there is no domestic enquiry or defective enquiry is admitted by the employer, there will be no difficulty. But when the matter is in controversy between the parties that question must be decided as a preliminary issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. On that decision being pronounced it will be for the management to decide whether it will adduce any evidence before the Labour Court. If it chooses not to adduce any evidence, it will not be thereafter permissible in any proceeding to raise the issue. We should also make it clear that there will be no justification for any party to stall the final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter, if worthy, can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial adjudication". Wherein while advising the Labour Court to decide such questions to the preliminary issue to decide whether in the domestic enquiry the violation of principles of natural justice had been caused. (sic.) But at the same time warning that there should not be undue delay caused in the adjudication and on such circumstances it would also be legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. 6. On the part of the learned counsel for the second respondent it would be argued that full opportunity has been afforded for the Management to exhaust its remedy and in fact the Management which examined all its witnesses necessary, it is the workman, the second respondent herein who had not even cross-examined those witnesses and submitted only his written explanation before the enquiry officer and on such circumstances it is amazing to note that on the part of the officer, inspite of the Management having examined their witnesses marking their documents and doing everything required to their satisfaction oflate in order to stall the enquiry proceedings have now come forward with this novel plea of having not been afforded with further opportunity to adduce additional evidence; that in these circumstances the Labour Court has concluded that the appreciation of evidence on the part of the enquiry officer was perverse. Such undue advantage should not be given to the management which would only protract the proceedings and delay the ultimate justice. 7. Such undue advantage should not be given to the management which would only protract the proceedings and delay the ultimate justice. 7. A perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court would not only reveal that the Labour Court has assessed the facts and circumstances encircling the whole case of the removal of the second respondent from service on account of the charges levelled against him and framed two points for consideration and determination; (i) Whether the removal from service of S.Chellaperumal (second respondent herein) is just and reasonable? and if not what is the relief that he is entitled to? (ii) If the relief is to be given in terms of money what shall be the outcome? As assessed from the evidence of M.Ws.1 and 2, and that of the second respondent herein and further examining the sole document, the judgment delivered in C.C.No.2909 of 1976 on the file of the Court of 6th Metropolitan Magistrate, Madras marked as Ex.W-1 dated 23.7.1977 and the other documents marked on the part of the Management viz., Ex.M-1, dated 26.6.1976 being the accident report, Ex.M-2, dated 26.6.1976 being detailed accident report, Ex.M-3, dated 26.6.1976 being photo copy of the statement given by the workman to the Motor Vehicle Inspector, Ex.M-4, dated 26.6.1976 being the photo copy of the statement of the workman given to the department, Ex.M-5, dated 1.6.1976 being the copy of the charge sheet issued by the Management, Ex.M-6, dated 14.6.1976 being explanation submitted by the workman, Ex.M-7 being the copy of the docket entries of the enquiry, Ex.M-8, dated 13.9.1976 being the enquiry report, Ex.M-9, dated 9.12.1976 being the second charge sheet, Ex.M-10, being the history sheet of the conduct of the workman, Ex.M-11, dated 24.12.1976 being the explanation by the workman and Ex.M-12 dated 11.3.1976 being the order of removal from service issued by the Management to the second respondent. 8. 8. The Labour Court assessing all these documents in the context of the facts and circumstances of the case and remarking that during the enquiry, the witnesses produced on the part of the Management were not examined in the presence of the workman, and there was no sufficient opportunity given for the workman to cross-examine the witnesses of the Management; that the Management has not examined any one of the passengers travelled in the bus at the time that the accident took place; remarking that without examining such vital eyewitnesses nor with due opportunity for the workman to cross-examine such witnesses, the Management cannot arrive at the conclusion to hold the workman guilty of the charges levelled. The Labour Court has also further considered that the Court of Criminal Jurisdiction handling the Police case registered against the second respondent herein for causing the accident after thorough trial held, has ultimately held the petitioner not guilty thus acquitting him of the charges framed therein as it is evident from the sole document exhibited on the part of the workman as Ex.W-1, dated 23.7.1977, the judgment of the Criminal Court made in C.C.No.29897 of 1976 and as such, the Labour Court would ultimately arrive at the conclusion to hold that the removal from service of the second respondent by the petitioner herein was unreasonable and has ordered his reinstatement in service with all backwages, continuity of service and the attendant benefits. 9. The only contention validity placed before this Court on the part of the petitioner Management is that the Labour Court inspite of having arrived at the conclusion to hold the appreciation of evidence on the part of the Enquiry Officer as perverse, the Management should have been given additional opportunities to let in additional evidence and denial of such opportunity could vitiate the whole proceedings of the Labour Court, and hence they would come forward to say that the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court ordering reinstatement in service with backwages, continuity of service and all other service benefits is bad in law nd would seek to quash the award passed by the Labour Court in I.D.No.487 of 1987 dated 29.11.1990. So far as this contention put forth on the part of the petitioner is concerned even from the judgment cited on their part delivered by the Supreme Court and reported in Cooper Engineering Ltd. v. P.P.Mundhe, (1975)2 L.L.J. 379 , it has been clearly pointed out that while the Labour Court deciding to offer further opportunity for the Management, the Apex Court has made it clear that “there will be no justification for any party to stall final adjudication of the dispute by the Labour Court by questioning its decision with regard to the preliminary issue when the matter if worthy can be agitated even after the final award. It will be also legitimate for the High Court to refuse to intervene at this stage. We are making these observations in our anxiety that there is no undue delay in industrial agitation.” In consideration of these remarks what the Labour Court did in the case in hand is quite justifiable and such opportunities as sought for on the part of the Management being susceptible to cause loss of unreasonable delay and to avoid such delays what the Labour Court decided denying such opportunity and giving relief to the workman is perfectly valid and appropriate in the circumstances of the case. 10. The conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court the case is quite on the expected line and no such infirmity or inconsistency has crept in, in the passing of the award of the Labour Court. I see no valid reason to interfere with the award of the Labour Court in granting relief of reinstatement of the second respondent herein in service with backwages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits. Since there is no patent error of law nor perversity in approach in the award passed by the first respondent Labour Court, the interference of this Court sought for into such well-considered and well-marked award of the Labour Court is uncalled for. 11. In result, the above writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. 12. The award passed by the first respondent Labour Court in its I.D.No.487 of 1987 dated 29.11.1990 is confirmed. No costs. 13. Consequently, W.M.P.No.15097 of 1991 is also dismissed.