JUDGMENT : R. Banumathi, J. 1. This appeal arises out of the order of the learned single Judge dated 18.7.2007 in W.P.(MD) No. 2263 of 2004 by which the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the award dated 29.10.2003 passed in I.D. No. 156 of 2000 by the Labour Court ordering reinstatement of the second Respondent without backwages. 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: (i) The second Respondent was employed as a Driver in the Appellant Corporation. On 7.11.1998, when he was on duty and when he was driving the bus bearing Regn. No. TN45-N-1326 in the route Karur - Chennai, on 8.11.1998 at about 5.30 a.m., on the G.S.T. Road, near Trident Hotel, the bus dashed an auto and in the accident, the person who was travelling in the auto sustained injuries and died in the Government Hospital and another person sustained grievous injuries on his head. In respect of the said misconduct, a chargememo dated 23.11.1998 was served on the second Respondent, who submitted his explanation on 17.12.1998 and the same was found to be unsatisfactory. One Thiru.K.S. Narasimhan, a Retired District Judge was appointed as an enquiry officer and in his report dated 23.6.1999, the enquiry officer found that the second Respondent was guilty of the charges levelled against him. Based on the finding of the enquiry officer, a show cause notice was served on the second Respondent calling upon him to offer his explanation as to why he should not be dismissed from service. The second Respondent submitted his explanation. By order dated 10.8.1999, the second Respondent was dismissed from service. (ii) Challenging the order of dismissal, the second Respondent filed a petition in I.D. No. 156 of 2000 before the first Respondent. Observing that the punishment of dismissal imposed on the second Respondent was harsh, the Labour Court interfered with the punishment of dismissal and ordered reinstatement with continuity of service but without backwages and other attendant benefits. 3. Aggrieved by the award ordering reinstatement, the Appellant corporation filed Writ Petition (MD) No. 2263 of 2004. Observing that the discretion u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was exercised judiciously, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the order of reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, the Appellant Corporation has filed the said Appeal. 4. Observing that the discretion u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act was exercised judiciously, the learned single Judge declined to interfere with the order of reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court. Challenging the order of the learned single Judge, the Appellant Corporation has filed the said Appeal. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant and the learned Counsel appearing for the second Respondent. 5. The past misconduct of the second Respondent which resulted in imposing punishment on a number of occasions and the second Respondent was consistently committing the misconduct and having regard to the past misconduct, the Appellant Corporation rightly imposed the punishment of dismissal from service, which the Labour Court and the Writ Court failed to take note of. It was further contended that the disciplinary proceedings was held in accordance with the service rules and while so, the Labour Court was not justified in interfering with the quantum of punishment and the learned single Judge was not right in confirming the above order. 6. On the earlier occasions, the second Respondent is alleged to have committed accident for which punishment was imposed upon him. Insofar as the accident on 7.11.1988, after examining the materials on record, the Labour Court held that the negligence of the second Respondent was very negligible and that the auto driver had also contributed to the accident. In the light of the evidence and materials, the Labour Court took the view that the punishment of dismissal from service was grossly disproportionate to the alleged misconduct and ordered reinstatement of the second Respondent with continuity of service but without backwages and other attendant benefits. It cannot be said that the Labour Court has arbitrarily exercised its discretion u/s 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act. When the award passed by the Labour Court does not suffer from any arbitrariness or perversity, the learned single Judge rightly declined to interfere with the award passed by the Labour Court. We do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the learned single Judge. 7. In the result, the Writ Appeal is dismissed. No costs.