Judgment :- 1. The prayer in this writ petition is to quash the award of the Labour Court made in I.D.No.255/1997, dated 29. 2000 and direct the second respondent to reinstate the petitioner with backwages and continuity of service. 2. The dismissal of the petitioner on 4. 1996 was confirmed by the Labour Court in the said award. The petitioner passed 9th Standard and obtained licence for driving heavy vehicles. According to the petitioner, he renewed his driving licence from time to time and he was employed as a Driver of lorry under M/s. Shanthi Lorry Services from the year 1988 in Coimbatore to Karur route. In the year 1988, with a view to get employment in the Transport Corporation owned by the Government of Tamil Nadu, the petitioner registered his name in the District Employment Exchange, Coimbatore. The District Employment Exchange sponsored a list of eligible candidates for recruiting drivers in the second respondent-Transport Corporation. The petitioners name having been sponsored, he was called upon to appear for interview on 25. 1993 in Cheran Training Institute, Pollachi. The petitioner appeared for the interview and according to him, he underwent training in Cheran Training Institute, Coimbatore. The petitioner was selected and appointed as Driver. The petitioner was deputed for training in Cheran Training Institute, Coimbatore and after completion of three months training, he was asked to await for the appointment order. On 23. 1994, the petitioner was appointed as a Driver on temporary basis with effect from 23. 1994 in the Town Service Branch-II. The petitioner worked as Driver and he was assigned to drive city buses within the city of Coimbatore. On 7. 1994, the second respondent again issued an appointment order appointing the petitioner as Driver with the salary of Rs.4,000/-and he was assigned staff No.16838 and posted at Town Service Branch-II. The petitioner also deposited a sum of Rs.500/- towards security deposit. He joined as driver and was driving the Town Bus till 25. 1995. 3. The petitioner was placed under suspension from 25. 1995 on the ground that he caused an accident on 25. 1995. A charge memo was also issued on 6. 1995 stating that the petitioner drove the bus belonging to the second respondent bearing Registration No.TCB 1548 plying from Ukkadam to Kottai Palayam route on 25. 1995. 3. The petitioner was placed under suspension from 25. 1995 on the ground that he caused an accident on 25. 1995. A charge memo was also issued on 6. 1995 stating that the petitioner drove the bus belonging to the second respondent bearing Registration No.TCB 1548 plying from Ukkadam to Kottai Palayam route on 25. 1995 and when the bus reached near Sharp Nagar at about 7.10 a.m., he drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner due to which the bus capsized into a pit on the left side of the road and 7 persons got injured and 6 of them took treatment in the private hospital as out-patients and one person was admitted in Coimbatore Government Hospital and the petitioner was responsible for the damage caused to the bus to the value of Rs.4000/- and the petitioner also caused revenue loss to the tune of Rs.1541.05 to the Transport Corporation. 4. The petitioner submitted his explanation to the charges and also prayed for revocation of suspension. The suspension order was revoked and he was permitted to rejoin duty. The explanation being not satisfactory, domestic enquiry was conducted and the Enquiry Officer found that the charges levelled against the petitioner are proved. The Deputy Manager-Legal issued second show cause notice on 11. 1995 and stated that the management concurs with the findings of the Enquiry Officer and proposed the punishment of dismissal from service. The petitioner submitted further representation on 21. 1996. After considering the same, the order of dismissal was passed on 4. 1996 dismissing the petitioner with effect from 14. 1996. The petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which was tried as I.D.No.255/1997 by the first respondent. The said I.D., having been dismissed, the petitioner filed this writ petition with the above said prayer. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the second respondent. 6. The point for consideration is whether the dismissal of the petitioner from his service is justified or not. The finding of the enquiry officer was that the width of the road is sufficient to go two vehicles. The petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and if the bus was driven cautiously, the accident could have been avoided. The finding of the enquiry officer was that the width of the road is sufficient to go two vehicles. The petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner and if the bus was driven cautiously, the accident could have been avoided. Though lack of skill of the petitioner was not framed as a charge for the continuance as driver in a transport vehicle, testing the skill or capacity of the driver is not illegal. The management and the first respondent analysed the material aspects including the documents filed on the side of the management viz., Ex.M11 dated 26. 1995 and Ex.M12 dated 4. 1996. In Exs.M11 and M12, it is stated that the petitioners ability to drive the vehicle was assessed and it was found that the petitioner is lacking efficiency/skill in driving the heavy vehicle and a copy of Ex.M12 dated 4. 1996 is also filed in the typed set of papers and the translated version of the same reads as follows:- "As per Ref.No.1, the case of Driver Thiru S.Balasubramaniam, Pa.No.16838 has been referred for reassessment, to know his driving capacity. The reassessment revealed that he has no sufficient capacity for operating the vehicle. Therefore, he is declared to be unfit to operate the passenger bus and heavy duty vehicles. Sd/ Sr. Deputy Manager (Training) Cheran Training Institute Coimbatore Road Pollachi – 642 002." 7. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for the second respondent, the Disciplinary Authority considered the report of the Deputy Manager-Training dated 4. 1996 as well as earlier assessment of the petitioners ability to drive the vehicle and based on the certificates of assessment, the order of dismissal was passed. Since the disciplinary authority has given a finding that the petitioner is unfit to drive heavy vehicles, particularly transport bus, based on the certificates of assessment given by Senior Deputy Manager (Training), the petitioner cannot contend that the dismissal order passed against the petitioner should be set aside and he should be ordered to be reinstated with backwages. The findings given by the Labour Court is also based on the certificates of inability (lack of skill) of the petitioner which is found in paragraph-9 of the Award of the Labour Court. There is no perversity in the said findings calling for interference by this Court in this writ petition. 8. The findings given by the Labour Court is also based on the certificates of inability (lack of skill) of the petitioner which is found in paragraph-9 of the Award of the Labour Court. There is no perversity in the said findings calling for interference by this Court in this writ petition. 8. The drivers who are driving public transport buses must be fully trained and must have the capacity to drive the buses, then only accidents can be prevented. From the statistics available, more accidents are happening in the State of Tamil Nadu. It is worthy note that as per statistics, the accidents happened in Tamil Nadu are as follows: TABLE 9. From the above details, it is evident that more people are killed due to motor vehicle accidents. To prevent such kinds of accidents and loss of human life, effective steps are to be taken to ascertain the capacity/driving skills of drivers. The Transport Corporation is therefore, perfectly justified in assessing the capacity of the petitioner who was its driver. The Senior Deputy Manager (Training) on three occasions found that the petitioner is lacking the skills of driving heavy vehicle. The petitioner is asserting his right to work. The authorities are bound to take care of the safety of passengers, pedestrians and persons travelling in other vehicles i.e. public interest. Hence, the second respondent is bound to verify the ability of the petitioner to drive heavy vehicle. A person who has no capacity/skill to drive a heavy vehicle is not entitled to claim that he should be reinstated as driver of the Transport Corporation. The findings given by the expert is binding on the second respondent and the same was relied on and order of dismissal was passed which was rightly confirmed by the first respondent-Labour Court. There is no illegality in the said orders. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been found unfit to drive the transport bus, he may be given an alternate job as he was already selected and the petitioner is willing to do any job, which may be assigned to him. 11. There is no illegality in the said orders. 10. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner having been found unfit to drive the transport bus, he may be given an alternate job as he was already selected and the petitioner is willing to do any job, which may be assigned to him. 11. In view of the said submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is permitted to make a representation before the second respondent and it is open to the second respondent to consider the said representation and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law. 12. The writ petition is dismissed with the above observation. No costs.