Judgment :- This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner Corporation challenging the award, dated 9. 2000, passed by the first respondent labour Court in I.D.No.498 of 1997. .2. It has been stated that the second respondent, while he was working as a driver in the petitioner Corporation, had taken the vehicle bearing registration No.TML 6151 in Route No.T60, on 10. 1993. When the bus was nearing Chenneri Cross Road bus stop, he had caused an accident due to his rash and negligent driving. Due to the said accident one of the passengers was grievously injured and had died thereafter. Charges had been framed against the second respondent and an explanation was sought for from him, on 11. 1993. The second respondent had submitted his explanation, on 11. 1993. Since the explanation submitted by the second respondent was not satisfactory, the petitioner Management had ordered for a domestic enquiry. In the said domestic enquiry, the second respondent was given ample opportunity to defend himself by examining his witnesses and by cross examining the management witnesses. The enquiry officer had come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred due to the negligence of the second respondent. 3. It has been further stated that, based on the enquiry report, a second show cause notice had been issued to the second respondent, on 10. 1996, for which the second respondent had submitted his explanation, on 210. 1996. Not being satisfied with the explanation submitted by the second respondent, a final order had been passed by the petitioner Management, on 21. 1997, dismissing the second respondent from service. Challenging the said order, the second respondent had raised an industrial dispute before the first respondent labour Court. However, the labour Court, on appreciation of the documentary evidence and the arguments adduced on either side, had passed the award, dated 9. 2000, setting aside the dismissal order passed against the second respondent, ordering the reinstatement of the second respondent, with continuity of service, with backwages and with all other attendant benefits. Aggrieved by the award passed by the first respondent labour Court, the petitioner Management had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .4. Aggrieved by the award passed by the first respondent labour Court, the petitioner Management had preferred the present writ petition before this Court, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. .4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Corporation had submitted that the enquiry had been conducted by the enquiry officer in a fair and proper manner following the principles of natural justice. Only after considering the evidence and the relevant documents, like the first information report, the sketch, newspaper report and the statements from the public, it had come to the conclusion that the charges against the first respondent delinquent employee were proved. However, the labour Court, without properly appreciating the evidence available on record and the relevant documents, had come to the wrong conclusion that the finding of the enquiry officer was incorrect. The labour Court ought to have found that during the enquiry, the checking inspector and one witness were examined to prove the misconduct and the negligence of the second respondent employee. The basic report has been prepared by the checking inspector only after he had made enquiries with the nearby shop keepers and the persons, who were standing at the place during the accident. The labour Court had come to the conclusion that the petitioner Management had not proved the guilt of the second respondent. However, such a conclusion of the labour Court is not supported by any evidence and it is only hypothetical. Thus, the labour Court had passed the award directing the petitioner Management to reinstate the second respondent in service with backwages, continuity of service and other attendant benefits. Further, the labour Court had not taken into account the fact that the second respondent had caused some accidents earlier and he was given warnings and punishments for his rash and negligent acts. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had further submitted that the award, dated 9. 2000, passed by the first respondent labour Court in I.D.No.498 of 1997, is contrary to the law and the principles of natural justice. The labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the past misconduct committed by the second respondent delinquent employee before it had passed the award ordering his reinstatement in service with other attendant benefits. 2000, passed by the first respondent labour Court in I.D.No.498 of 1997, is contrary to the law and the principles of natural justice. The labour Court ought to have taken into consideration the past misconduct committed by the second respondent delinquent employee before it had passed the award ordering his reinstatement in service with other attendant benefits. The labour Court had failed to see that the enquiry was conducted by the enquiry officer in a fair and proper manner and according to the principles of natural justice providing sufficient opportunity to the second respondent to defend himself. The first respondent labour Court had failed to see that the report of the checking inspector was prepared by him only after he had made sufficient enquiries with the shop keepers and the persons, who were close to the place of the accident. In such circumstances, the labour Court ought to have accepted the findings of the enquiry officer to be conclusive in nature. 6. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had submitted that the second respondent, while he was employed as a driver in the petitioner Corporation, was driving the bus, on 10. 1993, in Route No.T60 plying from Tambaram to Chennai. At about 6.45 p.m, when the bus was nearing Chenneri Cross Road bus stop, he had found there was a heavy crowd of people waiting to board the bus. On seeing the crowd, the second respondent had slowly stopped the bus at the bus stop. When the persons, who were standing at the bus stop, rushed towards the bus to board it, one of them had fallen down and he was injured. Due to the injuries sustained by him, he had died at the Hospital where he had been admitted. The accident had not occurred due to the second respondent nor was it caused by him. However, the petitioner Corporation had issued a charge memo to the second respondent employee alleging that he had caused the accident due to his rash and negligent driving. Even though the charge had been denied in the explanation submitted by the second respondent, a farce enquiry had been conducted against the second respondent by the petitioner Corporation and final orders had been passed, on 21. 1997, The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had also stated that no oral evidence was let in before the first respondent labour Court. 1997, The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had also stated that no oral evidence was let in before the first respondent labour Court. The documents had been marked as Exhibits M.1 to M.20. 7. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent had submitted that the award of the first respondent labour Court is based on factual assessment and the appreciation of the evidence available before it. The labour Court had exercised its jurisdiction in a fair and proper manner and therefore, the impugned award of the first respondent labour Court cannot be said to be erroneous or without jurisdiction. 8. It has also been stated that this Court by an order, dated 3. 2001, made in W.M.P.Nos.5617 and 5618 of 2001 in W.P.Nos.3956 and 3957 of 2001, had granted an order of interim stay which has been made absolute by an order of this Court, dated 18. 2003, subject to the following terms: "(i) The petitioner-Management is directed to deposit a sum of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees two lakhs only) to the credit of I.D.No.498 of 1997 on the file of Principal Labour Court, Chennai within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order; (ii) On such deposit being made, the second respondent herein – workman, viz., S.Ismail is permitted to withdraw Rs.1 lakh (Rupees one lakh only) without furnishing security; and (iii) The principal labour Court, chennai is directed to invest the balance amount in Indian Bank, Esplanade Branch – High Court Extension Counter, High Court Buildings, Chennai-104, initially for a period of three years under reinstatement scheme." 9. In the meantime, the petitioner Corporation, by its proceedings, dated 112. 2000, had directed the second respondent employee to report for work. Based on which, the second respondent had joined the duty, on 112. 2000 and he is continuing as such till date. 10. On hearing the contentions raised by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned and on a perusal of the records available, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner Corporation has not shown sufficient cause or reason for this Court to interfere with the award of the first respondent labour Court, dated 9. 2000, made in I.D. No.498 of 1997. 2000, made in I.D. No.498 of 1997. It is seen that the labour Court had found that the charges were framed only on the basis of the basic report marked as M.1, submitted by the checking inspector, namely, Rangabashyam. A detailed report was also prepared by the Branch Manager basing upon the basic report marked as Exhibit M.1. During the enquiry conducted by the enquiry officer, the checking inspector Rangabashyam and the witnesses, namely, Ezhilarasan, K. Kumar and Damodharan were examined as witnesses. The checking inspector is not an eye witness to the accident. 11. From Exhibit M.1, it is clear that after hearing about the accident, the checking inspector had gone to the place of the occurrence and had enquired the nearby shop keepers and the other persons who were standing at the place of the accident. Exhibit M.1 has been prepared only on the basis of the statements given by the persons, who were said to have been at the place of the accident. Before the enquiry officer, the checking inspector had deposed that on enquiring the persons, who were waiting for the bus, he had come to know that the delinquent employee was about to stop at the bus stop. On seeing the bus approaching the bus stop, the public, who were waiting for the bus, had rushed towards the bus and in the process one aged person had fallen down and sustained injuries. 12. Further, he had deposed before the enquiry officer that if the delinquent employee had acted diligently the death due such an accident could have been averted. The labour Court had found that from the evidence of the checking inspector, it was clear that the second respondent delinquent employee was about to stop the bus at the bus stop. However, on seeing the bus a number of persons, who were waiting at the bus stop, had rushed towards the bus pushing each other for getting into the bus and in the process one aged person had fallen down and sustained injuries. Exhibit M.1, the basic report had also revealed the fact that on seeing the public rushing towards the bus, the petitioner has stopped the bus. Exhibit M.1, the basic report had also revealed the fact that on seeing the public rushing towards the bus, the petitioner has stopped the bus. Further, the labour Court had found from Exhibit M.3, which is a copy of the first information report and the statements made by the second respondent employee and the conductor of the bus before the Branch Manager, as well as the statements of the witnesses Ezhilarasan, K. Kumar and Damodharan, marked as Exhibits M.18, M.19 and M.20, respectively, it is clear that the second respondent employee had stopped the vehicle on seeing the public rushing towards it. Only after the bus had been stopped, the public had tried to enter the bus pushing each other and in the process one of the persons had fallen down and he had sustained injuries. It cannot be said that the second respondent delinquent employee had not acted diligently to avoid the accident. 13. Even from the basic report and the evidence adduced before the checking inspector, it is seen that the petitioner Management had not proved the guilt of the second respondent employee. Since the conclusions arrived at by the enquiry officer was not based on the oral or the documentary evidence available before the enquiry officer, it cannot be said to be sustainable in the eye of law. Since the final order had been passed by the petitioner Management dismissing the second respondent employee from service based on such erroneous findings of the enquiry officer, the labour Court, by its order, dated 9. 2000, made in I.D.No.498 of 1997, had set aside the same and ordered reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service, with backwages and with other attendant benefits. In such circumstances, this Court does not find sufficient cause or reason to interfere with the award of the labour Court, dated 9. 2000, made in I.D.No.498 of 1997. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No costs.