Judgment :- 1. By consent, the main writ petition itself is taken up for disposal. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of writ of Certiorari to quash the award passed by the Labour Court, Salem dated 08.03.2005 in I.D.No.340 of 2003. 2. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Salem) Ltd, is the petitioner. The second respondent was working as a driver in the petitioner corporation and while he was on duty on 08.11.2000, an accident occurred, which according to the management, is on account of rash and negligence driving of the bus by the second respondent. A Criminal case was filed and departmental charge memo dated 16.1.2000 was issued. The second respondent submitted his explanation on 20.11.2000 and thereafter, domestic enquiry was conducted and the enquiry report was forwarded to the second respondent and second show cause notice dated 30.01.2001 was issued proposing the punishment of dismissal. The second respondent submitted his further explanation dated 23.02.2001 and not being satisfied with the explanation, the petitioner management dismissed the second respondent from service by order dated 05.03.2001. As such dismissal from service the second respondent raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Salem in I.D.No.340 of 2003 and the Labour Court by its award dated 08.03.2005 ordered reinstatement of the second respondent in service with continuity of service, but without backwages and other benefits. Aggrieved by such award, the petitioner Management has filed the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would contend that the Labour Court erred in rendering a finding that the documents filed on behalf of the petitioner Management did not prove that the second respondent alone was responsible for the accident. It is further contended that the Labour Court ought to have taken into consideration, the past conduct of the petitioner and ought to have held that the charges are proved and the Police had also registered a criminal case against the second respondent. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the Labour Court appreciated the material available on record and came to a conclusion that the punishment imposed by the petitioner is unsustainable and ordered for reinstatement without backwages. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that the impugned award is liable to be set aside. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent would contend that the Labour Court appreciated the material available on record and came to a conclusion that the punishment imposed by the petitioner is unsustainable and ordered for reinstatement without backwages. The finding of the Labour Court is based on appreciation of evidence on record and this Court should not upset such factual conclusion. The learned counsel would further submit that the criminal case, which was taken on file as C.C. No.345 of 2004 on the file of the Judicial Magistrate VI, Salem has ended in acquittal by Judgment dated 02.11.2009 and the criminal Court recorded a finding that the victim in the accident was under the influence of alcohol. Therefore, the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent submits that the writ petition is devoid of merits. 5. I have carefully considered the submissions on either side and perused the materials available on record. 6. Before, going into the factual contentions raised by either side, it is necessary to consider the scope and jurisdiction of this Court to issue a writ of Certiorari in cases involving orders passed by the Labour Court and quasi-judicial authorities. The Constitution Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in Syed Yakoob v. K.S. Radhakrishnan, AIR 1964 SC 477 , while considering this aspect held as hereunder:- "...................... A writ of certiorari can be issued for correcting errors of jurisdiction committed by inferior Courts or Tribunals; these are cases where orders are passed by inferior Courts or Tribunals without jurisdiction, or in excess of it, or as a result of failure to exercise jurisdictions. A writ can similarly be issued where in exercise of jurisdiction conferred on it, the Court or Tribunal acts illegally or improperly, as for instance, it decides a question without giving an opportunity to be heard to the party affected by the order, or where the procedure adopted in dealing with the dispute is opposed to principles of natural justice. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. There is, however, no doubt that the jurisdiction to issue a writ of certiorari is a supervisory jurisdiction and the Court exercising it is not entitled to act as an appellate Court. This limitation necessarily means that findings of fact reached by the inferior Court or Tribunal as a result of the appreciation of evidence cannot be reopened or questioned in writ proceedings. An error of law which is apparent on the face of the record can be corrected by a writ, but not an error of fact, however grave it may appear to be. In regard to a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal a writ of certiorari can be issued if it is shown that in recording the said finding, the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence which has influenced the impugned finding. Similarly, if a finding of fact is based on no evidence, that would be regarded as an error of law which can be corrected by a writ of certiorari. In dealing with this category of cases, however, we must always bear in mind that a finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal cannot be challenged ini proceedings for a writ of certiorari on the ground that the relevant and material evidence adduced before the Tribunal was insufficient or inadequate to sustain the impugned finding. The adequacy or sufficiency of evidence led on a point and the inference of fact to be drawn from the said finding are within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal, and the said points cannot be agitated before a writ Court. It is within these limits that the jurisdiction conferred on the High Courts under Article 226 to issue a writ of certiorari can be legitimately exercised." The decision of the Honble Constitution Bench was subsequently followed in several decisions and also reiterated by the Honble Supreme Court in the latest decision in Anoop Sharma Vs. Executive Engineer, Public Health Division No.1, Panipat (Haryana) 2010 3 LLJ 1 (SC). 7. Bearing in mind the above legal principle, if the impugned award is examined, it is seen that the petitioner corporation marked 12 documents in support of their contention and the Labour Court framed two issues for consideration, whether the punishment of dismissal from service is just and reasonable and as to what relief, the second respondent is entitled to. 7. Bearing in mind the above legal principle, if the impugned award is examined, it is seen that the petitioner corporation marked 12 documents in support of their contention and the Labour Court framed two issues for consideration, whether the punishment of dismissal from service is just and reasonable and as to what relief, the second respondent is entitled to. The Labour Court came to a conclusion that the domestic enquiry was properly held and therefore no preliminary order is necessary. Neither, the petitioner nor the second respondent examined any witnesses. On perusal of the deposition of the various witnesses examined during the domestic enquiry including that of the second respondent, the Labour Court recorded a finding that the victim in the accident was under the influence of alcohol and therefore held that the second respondent alone cannot be held to be solely responsible for the accident. Further, the Labour Court considering the past conduct of the second respondent and came to a conclusion that denial of backwages and benefits would be an appropriate punishment for the second respondent and therefore ordered for reinstatement without backwages and benefits. 8. In my view, the Labour Court cannot be faulted in its approach neither can it be stated that there is any perversity in the finding warranting interference by this Court in exercises of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. It is not a case, where the Tribunal had erroneously refused to admit admissible and material evidence, or had erroneously admitted inadmissible evidence, which has influenced the impugned finding. Further, it is not a case, where the finding of fact is based on no evidence. It is to be noted that the finding of the Criminal Court, which rendered Judgment, subsequently, that is on 12.09.2000, has also rendered a factual finding that the victim was under the influence of alcohol. 9. Hence, there is no error in the award passed by the Labour Court. In the result, the writ petition fails and it is dismissed. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed. No costs.