JUDGMENT : H.K. Rathod, J. Heard the learned advocate Mr. Roopal Patel appearing on behalf of the petitioner - Corporation and learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni appearing on behalf of the respondents. The petitioner Corporation has challenged the award passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (IT) No.82 of 1999 Exhibit 30 dated 31.1.2004. The Industrial Tribunal has set aside the punishment order imposed by Corporation for stoppage of 5 increments with cumulative effect and directed Corporation to pay difference and arrears of the salary as well as consequential benefits to respondent - workman with costs of Rs.1000/-. 2. Affidavit-in-reply is filed by respondent. Initially, this Court has issued Rule on 24.1.2005 and interim relief granted till final disposal of the petition. 3. Learned advocate Ms. Roopal Patel vehemently submitted that Industrial Tribunal has committed gross error in setting aside the entire punishment order passed by Corporation, though the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of the respondent. She submitted that in accident, one minor girl aged about 5 years died and damage was caused to S.T. Bus and this fact has been admitted by driver in statement obtained by Police Authority as well as also conductor in statement obtained by Police Authority. In departmental inquiry, reporter was examined, who supported report and on that basis, charge was established and thereafter, punishment was imposed by competent Authority. Therefore, interference is made by Industrial Tribunal in respect to finding given by Inquiry Officer is contrary to law and Industrial Tribunal has no jurisdiction to interfere with finding given by Inquiry Officer. She submitted that once departmental inquiry is conducted against workman, then the Industrial Tribunal should not have to interfere with punishment and even otherwise also, looking to misconduct committed by respondent - workman, punishment imposed by Corporation cannot be considered to be disproportionate, which requires no interference by Industrial Tribunal, while exercising power under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Except that no other submission is made by the learned advocate Ms. Roopal Patel. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni submitted that punishment itself is much harsh which losses to respondent workman about Rs.6000/- per month and at present, due to ill-health, respondent - workman driver working as helper at Bagsara Depot. He submitted that mere admission of fact, does not amounts to admission of guilt, which has been wrongly understood and appreciated by Corporation. Learned advocate Mr. Yatin Soni submitted that punishment itself is much harsh which losses to respondent workman about Rs.6000/- per month and at present, due to ill-health, respondent - workman driver working as helper at Bagsara Depot. He submitted that mere admission of fact, does not amounts to admission of guilt, which has been wrongly understood and appreciated by Corporation. He submitted that there was no positive evidence led by Corporation in departmental inquiry and reporter was not an eye-witness, therefore, charge of rash and negligent driving was not proved in departmental inquiry because conductor was not examined. The explanation given by workman has been ignored by competent Authority, therefore, learned advocate Mr. Soni submitted that Industrial Tribunal has rightly examined finding given by Inquiry Officer as there was no legal evidence on record before Inquiry Officer and in Criminal Case, the respondent driver was declared acquittal and in Tribunal also, the respondent was not held liable for negligence and therefore, learned advocate Mr. Soni submitted that Industrial Tribunal has rightly interfered with punishment imposed by competent Authority based on presumptions and assumptions, in absence of concrete evidence to prove negligence. Therefore, Tribunal has rightly set aside order. According to him, Industrial Tribunal has not committed any error, which requires interference by this Court while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution. 5. I have considered submissions made by both learned advocates and I have considered affidavit-in-reply filed by respondent and I have considered statement made by driver and conductor as well as finding given by Inquiry Officer. The accident occurred on 13.10.1994, when respondent was on duty as a driver from Amreli to Bapunagar Via Chital in Bus No. 2069. When bus was reached after crossing Rajkamal, going on correct side, near village Giriya, behind Ramji Temple, one lady with minor child going to river side, came on road all of sudden, where minor girl has also crossed the road and when bus was reached near lady, who stood there, meanwhile just to save lady and minor girl, driver has taken bus on left side and due to that, crossing one or two Babool tress, bus has been reached to 70 Ft. away in ditch, therefore, front portion of right side of bus was damaged and bumper of left side has also been damaged. In all, damage is caused about Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-. away in ditch, therefore, front portion of right side of bus was damaged and bumper of left side has also been damaged. In all, damage is caused about Rs.1000/- to Rs.2000/-. The statement of driver was recorded by Police Authority, in which, there is no admission made by driver that at the time, when accident occurred, he was driving his bus rashly and negligently. On the contrary, the statement of driver suggests that more sufficient care was taken by him to save lady and minor girl, but due to minor girl, who crossed the road and lady was remained standing on road, while returning minor girl, dashed with bus and because of dash on earth, she received injury and died but she was not died because of wheel of bus has been run over upon her. Similarly, statement of conductor also obtained, which also giving detail how the accident is occurred and after seeing lady and minor girl, driver has taken sufficient care. That fact has been supported by statement of conductor. In departmental inquiry, one reporter who was examined, has visited place of accident subsequently, but he was not eye-witness to accident. The explanation given by driver before Inquiry Officer that after bus has reached near village Giriya, one lady and minor girl all of sudden came on the road behind Ramji Temple and minor girl has crossed road, but lady remained standing in the side of road and therefore, just to save lady from accident, bus has been taken on left side after slowing down speed of bus and thereafter, it has been gone into ditch and due to that, minor girl has been dashed with bus and fell down and received injuries and due to that, she died. This explanation given by driver in inquiry is not at all considered by Inquiry Officer and came to conclusion on presumptions that driver must have to slow speed of bus, while taking sufficient care, but there was no evidence on record, which prove fact that at the time of when bus was met with accident, it was in excessive speed and no care was taken by driver. The bus which was found in ditch because just to avoid accident, it was taken on left side by driver while taking sufficient care for avoiding accident. The bus which was found in ditch because just to avoid accident, it was taken on left side by driver while taking sufficient care for avoiding accident. On this fact, presumptions have been made by Inquiry Officer that bus was in excessive speed, for that there is no positive evidence led in departmental inquiry while examining any eye-witness of accident in departmental inquiry. The conductor of the bus was also not examined and person, who was not eye-witness, reporter was examined, who has not seen accident, therefore, his evidence has not evidentary value and without any cogent reason on record, Inquiry Officer has come to the conclusion that charge of rash and negligent driving is proved against respondent. This aspect has been rightly appreciated by Industrial Tribunal after considering the documents, which have been produced by Corporation at Exhibit 15 to 26, which are exhibited and legality and validity of departmental inquiry was admitted at Exhibit 13, but disputed finding given by Inquiry Officer as well as challenging punishment order by respondent workman. Thereafter, issues have been framed by Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar as discussed in para 9. Thereafter, Industrial Tribunal has examined evidences, which are on record. After considering documents produced by Corporation, Industrial Tribunal has come to the conclusion that reporter was not an eyewitness, no map was prepared by reporter and no statement of passenger has been obtained by reporter and papers have not been prepared as per Rules of Corporation and merely statement of driver and conductor have been considered but driver has not admitted negligence and therefore, Industrial Tribunal has come to the conclusion that finding, which has been given by Inquiry Officer for that there was no legal evidence available on record and it is based on presumptions and assumptions and therefore, finding given by Inquiry Officer held to be baseless and perverse and in criminal case, workman has been declared acquittal and finding of Inquiry Officer that bus was in excessive speed and that there was no evidence led in departmental inquiry, therefore, Industrial Tribunal has come to the conclusion that based upon such finding, it is found to be baseless and perverse. The punishment imposed by competent Authority is required to be set aside. The punishment imposed by competent Authority is required to be set aside. In departmental inquiry, when it is admitted and not challenged by workman before Industrial Tribunal and if finding is challenged for that also, under Section 11-A of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with finding and re-appreciate evidence led in departmental inquiry and come to conclusion while deferring to the conclusion of the Inquiry Officer. That view has been taken by the Apex Court in the case of Mavji C. Lakum v. Central Bank of India reported in 2008 (119) FLR 96 (SC), where Industrial Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with finding, though legality and validity of inquiry is not challenged by workman and Industrial Tribunal can come to its own conclusion while deferring with conclusion of Inquiry Officer. Therefore, contentions raised by learned advocate Ms. Patel cannot be accepted and according to my opinion, Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar has rightly decided Reference and also given details reason in support of its conclusion and while setting aside punishment imposed by Corporation, Industrial Tribunal has not committed any error which requires interference by this Court, while exercising power under Article 227 of the Constitution. Therefore, there is no substance in present petition. Accordingly, present petition is dismissed. 6. Considering affidavit-in-reply filed by workman, who was working in post of driver since 1991. Now, because of ill-health, he is recategorized in post of helper at Bagsara Depot and because of punishment, each month, the loss is come about more than Rs.6000/- in salary of workman and therefore, it is directed to S.T. Corporation to implement award passed by Industrial Tribunal, Bhavnagar in Reference (I.T.) No.82 of 1999, Exhibit 30 dated 31.1.2004 and pay whatever amount being difference of salary and arrears with consequential benefits to pay to respondent workman Amarsinh Premjibhai Parmar within a period of two months from date of receiving copy of this order. Interim relief granted by this Court stands vacated, as petitioner is therefore, directed to implement award immediately and make payment in favour of respondent within a period of two months from date of receiving copy of this order. Rule is discharged. Petition Dismissed.