Judgment :- 1. In W.P.No.2328 of 2010, the petitioner is the Tamil Nadu Co-operative Milk Producers Federation Limited. They are aggrieved by the award passed by the first respondent/Labour Court in I.D.No.627 of 2003, dated 31.3.2009. By the impugned award, the first respondent/Labour Court directed reinstatement of the second respondent/workman with continuity of service and other attendant benefits, but without back-wages. As against the impugned award dated 31.3.2009, W.P.No.2328 of 2010 has been filed. 2. The said writ petition was admitted on 9.2.2010. When the matter came up on that day, this Court directed the payment under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Disputes Act to the workman starting from 1.4.2009. It is now stated that the arrears of payment from 1.4.2009 till 31.1.2010 to the tune of Rs.71,150/- has been deposited in the Labour Court to the credit of I.D.No.627 of 2003. 3. The second respondent/workman has come forward to file writ petition (W.P.No.4408 of 2010) challenging that portion of the award which denied him back-wages. When that writ petition came up, this Court directed both the writ petitions to be taken up jointly and notice was given to the counsel for the management. 4. Heard Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel for the management and Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the workman. 5. The case against the second respondent was that he has been working as a Heavy Vehicle Driver from 21.12.1987 and he was drawing the last drawn wage of Rs.7,115/-. While he was driving the milk van after collecting milk from the filling center on 19.7.1998 and was returning from Tiruvannamalai to Chennai, at around 3 a.m. near Kalasapakkam Village, the vehicle met with an accident and the codriver (Pothi) was seriously injured. On account of the accident, the vehicle was damaged and it has caused a loss of Rs.38,652/-to the management. The workman was placed under suspension. 6. Pending enquiry, subsequently he was restored to service and the enquiry was conducted. In the enquiry, the co-worker (Pothi) was examined. He claimed ignorance about the incident by stating that at the relevant time he was in sleep and he did not know about the exact accident. However, the management, on the basis of the available records, found the workman guilty and dismissed him from service by order dated 4.3.2003. Therefore, during the period from 1998 to 2003 while the enquiry was in progress, the workman was in service. 7. However, the management, on the basis of the available records, found the workman guilty and dismissed him from service by order dated 4.3.2003. Therefore, during the period from 1998 to 2003 while the enquiry was in progress, the workman was in service. 7. As against the dismissal, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Assistant Commissioner of Labour. On the strength of the failure report given by him dated 1.9.2003, he filed a claim statement before the labour court dated 20.10.2003.The Labour Court took up the dispute as I.D.No.627 of 2003 and issued notice to the management. The management filed a counter statement dated NIL. Before the Labour Court, the workman examined himself as W.W.1 and on the side of the management one P.Rengan was examined as M.W.1. While the workman has filed 18 documents and they were marked as Exs.W1 to W18, the management has filed 14 documents and they were marked as Exs.M1 to M14. 8. The Labour Court held that though it was not an accident involving two vehicles, unless the driver was rash and negligent, the vehicle could not have fallen into a pit. The Labour Court held that co-driver not granting any evidence against the petitioner is of no consequence and it is a case of res ipsa loquitur and therefore, he is guilty of the offence. Thereafter, after referring to the previous misconduct of the workman by taking note of the evidence adduced by M.W.1, it came to the conclusion that the charges were proved, but at the same time by exercise of power under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act, it interfered with the punishment. What strongly weighed with the Labour Court was that there was no loss of life and there was no other vehicle involved and even the co-driver who was injured was taken for treatment by the petitioner. Therefore, the Labour Court was of the opinion that deprivation of the back-wages will be a sufficient punishment. It is in that view of the matter, the above said award came to be passed. 9. Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in circumstances of this nature it is not required to examine any eye-witness who may not be available, but at the same time in an accident of this nature, the res ipsa loquitur concept can be pressed into service. 9. Mr.P.Gunaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in circumstances of this nature it is not required to examine any eye-witness who may not be available, but at the same time in an accident of this nature, the res ipsa loquitur concept can be pressed into service. He submitted that the workman was also involved in previous misconduct which was set out in the counter statement filed before the Labour Court and spoken to by M.W.1. 10. A perusal of the past misconduct shows that excepting two instances, the other three instances relate to refusal to attend duty. The fifth incident cited by them was relating to break-down and not accident. So the only incident of accident that they have mentioned is that the milk tanker met with an accident which caused damage of Rs.1000/-, which was recovered from the salary of the workman. 11. Alternatively, Mr.P.Gunaraj submitted that there was no justification for grant of any back-wages and if back-wages are granted it will be a premium to the indiscipline of the workman and there is nothing on record to show that the workman has ever suffered any punishment. 12. Per contra, Mr.K.M.Ramesh, learned counsel for the workman pressed into service the judgment of this Court in Jeeva Transport Corporation Ltd. v. Industrial Tribunal and another, 1994 II LLJ 350. It is for the purpose of showing that if there are no eye-witnesses, merely on the basis of the evidence of the official of the Corporation who went to the spot subsequent to the accident, it cannot be held to be a legal proof of rash and negligent driving. He also placed reliance upon another judgment of this Court in Management of Cheran Transport Corporation Ltd., Coimbatore v. Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Madras, 2002 (1) LLN 388 for the same purpose. 13. However, subsequent to the said judgments, the concept of res ipsa loquitur has been pressed into service even by the Supreme Court. Therefore, one cannot totally accept that there must be an eye-witness in all circumstances. In the present case, the co-worker who was examined was not helpful to the case of the management. 13. However, subsequent to the said judgments, the concept of res ipsa loquitur has been pressed into service even by the Supreme Court. Therefore, one cannot totally accept that there must be an eye-witness in all circumstances. In the present case, the co-worker who was examined was not helpful to the case of the management. Secondly, immediately after the suspension of the workman was revoked and he was restored to service for nearly five years and the Labour Court has also given liberty to the management to recover the damages caused due to the incident and therefore, it cannot be said that the Labour Court has misdirected itself and granted relief without any justification. 14. On the other hand, the Labour Court has considered all relevant parameters and in exercise of the power conferred under Section 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act held that deprivation of the back-wages will be a sufficient punishment, while granting reinstatement with continuity of service and all other attendant benefits. 15. This Court is not inclined to interfere with the discretion of the Labour Court under Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act when the same has been properly exercised. This Court is unable to agree with either of the counsel. Both the writ petitions stand dismissed. Since by the interim order dated 9.2.2010 this Court directed the balance wages pursuant to the award to be deposited in the Labour Court, which the management also deposited, the workman is entitled to withdraw the said amount of Rs.71,150/-from the Labour Court together with interest, if any accrued. With these directions, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P.Nos.1 and 2 of 2010 in W.P.No.2328 of 2010 are closed.