JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the record. 2. This writ petition has been filed against the award dated 19.12.1996 passed by the Labour Court, U.P. Varanasi in Adjudication Case No. 271 of 1989. The impugned award has been enforced by publication on the notice board under Section 6-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 on 19.9.1997. 3. Respondent No. 1 was driving the bus of the U.P. State Road Transport Corporation on 14.8.81. While the bus was being driven by the respondent workman on Varanasi Korwan enroute it collided with another bus. The charge-sheet was issued to respondent No. 1 in this petition on the ground that the bus was being driven by him in a rash and negligent manner as such it has met with an accident and the Corporation has suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- After holding domestic enquiry respondent No. 1 was dismissed from service vide order dated 29.12.1988 and an industrial dispute was raised by him alleging illegal termination from his service. 4. Conciliation proceedings having failed the matter was referred to the Labour Court, U.P. Varanasi where it was registered as Adjudication Case No. 271 of 1989. 5. The Labour Court after appreciating the pleadings and evidence of the parties answered the award in favour of the workman accepting his claim by the impugned award dated 19.12.96 and has directed the reinstatement of the workman in service with full back wages. 6. The validity and correctness of the aforesaid award is challenged on the ground that in the departmental disciplinary proceedings respondent No. 1 was found guilty of driving the bus negligently due to which the bus collided with another bus and that the Corporation has suffered a loss to the extent of Rs. 40,000/- as stated above. 7. It is submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that once the departmental proceedings was found by the Labour Court to be in accordance with the principles of natural justice, it was not open to the Labour Court to arrive at a different conclusions by finding faults with the proceedings and as such the award of the Labour Court is liable to be quashed. 8. 8. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Labour Court has completely lost sight of the fact that it deprived the petitioner from giving any evidence inspite of time sought by the petitioner and as such the observations of the Labour Court that the petitioner did not produce any evidence is wholly illegal and the same is liable to be quashed; that the Labour Court has accepted the claim of respondent No. 1 on the presumption that no driver will deliberately collide with another bus and since it was raining heavily and the workman tried to avoid overrunning a cyclist who had fallen down on the road, hence it was not a case of negligence of the driver. It is stated that assuming the driver should have been more cautious and vigilant to avoid damage to the bus and for safety of the passengers and as such the award of the Labour Court is wholly illegal and erroneous; and that the Labour Court has wrongly held that the charge-sheet was not clear and no eye witness was produced. 9. It is further submitted that since the Labour Court did not hold departmental disciplinary proceedings contrary to principles of natural justice and as such the proceedings of departmental enquiry which were on records of the case established the guilt of respondent No. 1, hence neither any fresh evidence was required to be led by the petitioner nor any eye-witness or witness was required to be examined before the Labour Court and as such the award of the Labour Court is wholly illegal and erroneous. 10. Sri Smeer Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner has also urged that the Labour Court has not given any reasoning while granting back wages to the workman. 11. Learned Counsel for the workman has submitted that it has come in the evidence that both the drivers of the bus of the Corporation have admitted that it was raining heavily on that day and the accident has occurred as the respondent workman had tried to save the cyclist who had fallen down on the road. This shows that the accident has not occurred because of any rash and negligent driving of the bus driver as claimed by the employers. 12. This shows that the accident has not occurred because of any rash and negligent driving of the bus driver as claimed by the employers. 12. From the pleadings of the award it is apparent that the driver of other bus has also supported the contention of the respondent workman that the accident has not occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus by respondent No. 1 but it appears that the bus had collided as a result of reflex action in avoiding the bus to overrun the cyclist who had fallen down in middle of the road. The Labour Court has very practically dealt with the fact that the accident has occurred on account of heavy rains and has taken a practical view in the matter that visibility for the driver was not very clear on account of heavy rains. 13. As regards the findings in the domestic enquiry it was held that the enquiry was conducted in accordance with the principles of natural justice and the workman has been given opportunity of hearing to produce evidence. The finding of the Labour Court that the domestic enquiry held by the employers was fair and proper only relates to procedure. The findings or conclusions can still be challenged as illegal, arbitrary or against the record etc. In this context reference may also be made to the provisions of Section 6(2A) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which provides that the employer can also rely upon its findings in the domestic enquiry or may justify their action before the Labour Court. Thereafter even if the enquiry has been held to be fair and proper, its conclusions are always subject to decision by a Court. The mployers had full opportunity also to justify their action before the Labour Court as the workman had challenged the findings arrived at in the domestic enquiry proceedings but no witness was produced by the employers inspite of granting repeated opportunities. Even the report of the Foreman was also not produced in the Court wherein it has been reported that the drivers of both the buses were equally responsible. In this context it may be noted that no enquiry has been held against the other driver of the bus and if he was equally guilty, the enquiry should have been initiated against him also but it has not been done so. In this context it may be noted that no enquiry has been held against the other driver of the bus and if he was equally guilty, the enquiry should have been initiated against him also but it has not been done so. This shows tint of malafide and discrimination with the workman concerned in the writ petition. The Labour Court has given a finding of fact on the basis of pleadings and evidence on record and has rightly come to the conclusion that the employers have failed to establish their case. 14. In so far as the contention of Sri Sameer Sharma, learned Counsel for the petitioner that no reasoning has been given by the Labour Court while granting back wages to the workman is concerned, I am of the opinion that the driver of the other bus who was reported to be equally responsible has been paid his back wages and no departmental enquiry has been initiated against him. Even otherwise, the employers have failed to establish their case before the Labour Court, hence in the facts and circumstances of the case, the workman is entitled to full back wages. 15. For the reasons stated above, the writ petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. ————