Judgment Jayant Patel, J.—The short facts of the case appears to be that the petitioner was working as driver and he was dismissed from the service on account of the accident of the bus near Sabarmati Ashram and in the said accident, the pillion rider lady on the scooter had died. The criminal case was filed against the petitioner being Criminal Case No. 1855/99 before the learned Metropolitan Magistrate and in the said criminal case, the benefit of doubt was given to the petitioner and he was acquitted vide Judgement dated 22.04.1999 passed by the learned Metropolitan Magistrate. It appears that against the order of dismissal, the petitioner raised the dispute under the Industrial Disputes Act (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and the Labour Court ultimately, passed the Award dated 08.04.1999 for reinstatement in services, but did not award backwages and the increment. Under these circumstances, the petitioner has approached to this Court by the present petition challenging the Award of the Labour Court so far as it relates to not awarding the backwages. 2. Heard Mr. Rathod for the petitioner and Ms. Archana Patel for Mr. Hardik Raval for the respondent Corporation. 3. The perusal of the Award passed by the Labour Court shows that in the departmental inquiry, it was found that the petitioner was partly held responsible for the accident. However, the Labour Court found that the responsibility was not fully fixed and it was a first incident and therefore, the Labour Court substituted the punishment by reinstatement without backwages and increment. Therefore, it is not a matter where the termination was held as wholly illegal and the backwages was not awarded. But the interference by the Labour Court to the punishment imposed upon the workman is by way of substitution and reduction of the punishment by not granting the backwages and the increment and only reinstatement. Under these circumstances, if such discretion is exercised, the same cannot said to be perverse which may be required to be interfered with by this Court in exercise of power under Article 277 of the Constitution, more particularly when it is reported to this Court that the Corporation has challenged the award passed by the Labour Court so far as reinstatement is concerned. 4. In view of the aforesaid, the petition is meritless and hence, dismissed. No order as to cost. P P P P P