JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mrs. Mandavia, learned advocate for the petitioner. 2. The petition is directed against the award dated 20.7.2011 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Ahmedabad in Reference (IT) No.145 of 2008 whereby the learned Tribunal has set aside the order dated 4.1.2008 passed by the petitioner - Corporation imposing punishment of stoppage of 5 increments with permanent effect. 2.1 The Tribunal has, by the award impugned in present petition, set aside the order dated 4.1.2008, however, the tribunal has also declined to grant direction of payment of the monetary loss caused to the respondent - workman from 4.1.2008 until the date of award i.e. 20.7.2011, which occurred on account of the fact that the order dated 4.1.2008 remained in operation until the date of award. The tribunal has directed the petitioner - corporation to fix the salary of the respondent - workman by considering the payment of salary from 4.1.2008 to 20.7.2011 as notional pay and to start regular payment of his salary from 20.7.2011 without giving effect to the order dated 4.1.2008. The petitioner corporation is aggrieved by the direction of setting aside the order dated 4.1.2008. 3. So far as the factual background is concerned, it emerges from the record that the respondent workman has been in the employment of the petitioner corporation as driver since last 16 years. It also emerges from the record that the respondent workman was visited with a charge-sheet framed on the basis of alleged-reported misconduct with reference to alleged incident of accident on 18.10.2004 allegedly involving respondent while he was plying State Road Transport Corporation's bus and it was alleged that he had committed misconduct of not intimating the factum of the accident (allegedly involving the respondent) to the petitioner corporation. The charge-sheet which was issued for the alleged lapse on the part of the respondent workman (viz. of allegedly not reporting the incident of alleged accident which reportedly involved the respondent) is, admittedly, not enumerated as misconduct in the Standing Orders/Service Regulations of the petitioner corporation. The said charge-sheet culminated into penalty order dated 4.1.2008 whereby the Disciplinary Authority imposed penalty of stoppage of 5 increments with permanent effect. 3.1 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 4.1.2008, the respondent workman raised industrial dispute, which culminated into Reference (IT) No.145/2008. 3.2 During the proceedings, relevant documentary evidence were placed on record and oral evidence was also recorded. 3.1 Feeling aggrieved by the said order dated 4.1.2008, the respondent workman raised industrial dispute, which culminated into Reference (IT) No.145/2008. 3.2 During the proceedings, relevant documentary evidence were placed on record and oral evidence was also recorded. On the basis of material on record and after considering the submissions of both sides, the learned Labour Court came to the conclusion that respondent's alleged involvement in the accident was not established and that the petitioner corporation had failed to establish, during the proceedings of the departmental inquiry, that the respondent workman and the bus which he was driving were involved in any fatal accident as alleged and that even otherwise the penalty imposed by the petitioner was harsh and excessive. Thus, the learned Tribunal passed the impugned award. 4. Ms. Mandavia has appeared and has assailed the award. She submitted that the conclusion by the tribunal are erroneous and directions are unjustified and that award is not sustainable. Any other submissions is not made. 5. I have heard learned counsel and considering the award, the record of the petition and the submissions. 4. Ms. Mandavia has appeared and has assailed the award. She submitted that the conclusion by the tribunal are erroneous and directions are unjustified and that award is not sustainable. Any other submissions is not made. 5. I have heard learned counsel and considering the award, the record of the petition and the submissions. 5.1 On examination of the award, it has emerged that :- (a) it appears that during the proceedings before the Labour Court while the respondent admitted the legality and propriety of the inquiry, he challenged the findings of the Inquiry Officer as claimed by the petitioner corporation that when the respondent workman was asked about the accident, he had informed that the bus which he was driving had not met with any accident; (b) the respondent workman also relied on the statement made by the witnesses during the suit proceedings before the Civil Court and claimed that the witnesses also did not depose that the bus was involved in or had met with any accident; (c) during the proceedings before the Labour Court, the respondent workman also claimed that the bus which he was driving had not met with any accident and even the Sessions Court did not hold him (i.e. the respondent workman) guilty for the alleged accident and that he had been acquitted by the Court in the criminal proceedings; (d) It was also contended by the respondent workman that during the inquiry proceedings, even the conductor of the bus was not examined and the witnesses who were examined before the trial Court were also not examined; (e) the learned tribunal has noticed that in the statement which were recorded by the authority, any statement of the conductor was not recorded and below the statements which were recorded, signature of the conductor and/or driver were also not obtained; (f) the learned tribunal has also considered the decision of the learned Sessions Court, which also claimed the respondent workman had also placed on record, i.e. the decision of the trial Court in Criminal Case No.89 of 2005 wherein the learned trial Court did not find the respondent guilty of alleged accident in the said case and acquitted the respondent; (g) that the statement which were recorded by the police authorities did not contain signature of the conductor or the driver; (h) the learned tribunal also observed that only on the basis of the statements recorded by the police, which did not contain signature of the respondent driver or the conductor, the Inquiry Officer could not have reached the conclusion about factum of fatal accident or respondent's alleged involvement in the accident; (i) that before passing the penalty order even second show-cause notice about proposed penalty and inviting objections against finding of the inquiry officer, required procedure was not followed; and that (j) the learned tribunal also came to the conclusion that the charge levelled against the respondent workman cannot be said to have been duly established and that therefore, the penalty imposed on the basis of such finding cannot be sustained. 6. Having regard to the facts of the case, the foregoing discussion, the material on record and the observations by the learned tribunal, it cannot be said that the conclusions by the learned tribunal are unwarranted or unjustified or without support of any material or contrary to the weight of evidence on record. 7. Even during the hearing of present petition, learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any material from the record before the learned tribunal that the findings of the Inquiry Officer were duly substantiated by cogent evidence and the factum of fatal accident by the respondent workman was duly substantiated and established. The learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to point out any material on record which could convince this Court that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are contrary to the evidence on record and/or perverse or arbitrary. Any infirmity in the award has not been established. Under the circumstances, the petition does not deserve to be entertained and the same is rejected. Petition rejected.