JUDGMENT:- 1. The petitioner/Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Salem, in W.P.No.22671 of 2004, has preferred the present Writ of Certiorari, in calling for the records of the first respondent in I.D.No.141 of 1999, dated 15.07.2003 and to quash the same. 2. The petitioner/workman in W.P.No.36896 of 2006 has preferred the Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus, in calling for the records pertaining to the Award in I.D.No.141 of 1999 on the file of the Labour Court, Salem, dated 15.07.2003 and to quash that portion of the Award of the Labour Court which denies the relief of back wages and resultantly, to direct the Respondent/Management to pay back wages to him from the date of dismissal order dated 29.09.1998. 3. The second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was appointed as Driver in the Petitioner/Transport Corporation on 23.01.1989 and served in that capacity for nearly 9= years. In April, 1998, his last drawn salary was Rs.3800.65 Paise. 4. The second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was assigned with the task of driving the bus bearing Registration No. TN 27/N 0643 from Erode to Bangalore on 19.09.1997. He took the trip of the bus on 19.09.1997 at about 22.30 hours during night time from Erode and was proceeding towards Bangalore. When the bus was nearing Kunchandiyur near Bharathi Nagar and Kanthanur at about 00.30 hours early morning, a pedestrian crossed the road from right side to the left side, as a result of which, the accident took place by dashing against the pedestrian and later, the pedestrian expired in the Hospital. 5. The plea of the second Respondent/workman (in W.P. No. 22671 of 2004) is that he was not responsible for the happening of accident that took place on 20.09.1997 at about 00.30 hours early morning and the accident took place beyond his control. Further, the pedestrian was squarely responsible for the happening of the accident. A criminal case in C.C.No.8 of 1998 was filed against him on the file of Learned Judicial Magistrate No. II, Mettur Dam. 6. The second Respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was issued with the charge memo on 26.09.1997. He submitted his explanation on 08.10.1997. After conducting the domestic enquiry, by providing due opportunity to the workman to defend his case, he was dismissed from service on 29.09.1998. 6. The second Respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was issued with the charge memo on 26.09.1997. He submitted his explanation on 08.10.1997. After conducting the domestic enquiry, by providing due opportunity to the workman to defend his case, he was dismissed from service on 29.09.1998. Against his dismissal from service on 29.09.1998, the second Respondent/ workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) filed I.D.No.141 of 1999 on the file of Labour Court, Salem. 7. In the criminal case in C.C.No.8 of 1998, the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was acquitted of charges in respect of offences under Sections 279 and 304 A of Indian Penal Code on 25.10.1999. The Criminal Court acquitted him on the ground that there was no direct oral or documentary evidence produced on the side of the prosecution to prove that the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) had driven the offending bus bearing Registration No. TN 27/N 0643 in a fast, speed and also negligently endangering human safety and consequently, the pedestrian Palaniappan expired. Moreover, the eye witness P.W.1 and other witnesses, P.Ws.2 and 3 had deposed before the Criminal Court that they do not know anything about the factum of accident that took place on 20.09.1997 at about 12.45 in the early morning. Since the prosecution had not established the case beyond all reasonable doubt, the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was acquitted of the charges in respect of Sections 279 and 304 A of Indian Penal Code. 8. The Petitioner/Transport Corporation (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004), before the Labour Court, filed a detailed counter inter alia mentioning that the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004), for the misconducts committed and based on earlier records, was removed from service on 29.09.2008 and the dismissal order passed by the Management/Transport Corporation was valid as per law and based on the principle of natural justice. In short, the Petitioner/Transport Corporation (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) had stated in the counter in I.D.No.141 of 1999 that the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was provided with adequate opportunity and in the domestic enquiry, it was proved that he is responsible for causing the accident on the date, which resulted in the death of one C. Palaniappan, pedestrian. 9. 9. The Labour Court, Salem, after contest, passed an Award in I.D.No.141 of 1999 on 15.07.2003 inter alia holding that there was no direct evidence for proving that the second respondent/ workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) had driven the offending bus in a fast, speed and in an irresponsible fashion and also opined that he had not mentioned in his explanation about coming of the lorry on the opposite side and only the Conductor of the bus had mentioned the said fact in his statement and if only the workman had seen the lorry driver coming on the opposite side and also driven the bus slowly, the accident could have been averted. 10. Moreover, the Labour Court had categorically rendered a finding that the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was slightly negligent/careless and therefore, came to the conclusion that a mitigating punishment could be awarded to him and accordingly, set aside the punishment of dismissal passed by the Petitioner/Transport Corporation (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) and directed the reinstatement of the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) without back wages, but granted him the benefit of continuity of service and also ordered to confer other benefits to him. 11. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Transport Corporation (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) submits that the Labour Court, Salem, came to the wrong conclusion, while passing the Award in I.D.No.141 of 1999 dated 15.07.2003, that the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was not solely responsible for the accident and further, the judgment of acquittal rendered by the Criminal Court should not have influenced the Labour Court in passing the Award by directing the second respondent/workman's reinstatement with continuity of service with other benefits, but without back wages. 12. The Learned Counsel for the Petitioner/Transport Corporation (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) urges before this Court that the First Respondent/Labour Court, after taking note of the past record of the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004), ought not to have interfered with the punishment of dismissal inflicted by the Petitioner/Management (in W.P. No.22671 of 2004) upon the employee/its driver. Also that, the Labour Court came to the wrong conclusion that the second respondent/workman (in W.P. No.22671 of 2004) was only slightly negligent and further, the enquiry report of the Management on the domestic enquiry was misconstrued by the Labour Court. 13. Also that, the Labour Court came to the wrong conclusion that the second respondent/workman (in W.P. No.22671 of 2004) was only slightly negligent and further, the enquiry report of the Management on the domestic enquiry was misconstrued by the Labour Court. 13. A perusal of the finding of the domestic enquiry, dated 21.03.1998, submitted by the Enquiry Officer indicates that in the domestic enquiry, M.W.1-Shanmugam (Traffic Manager) and M.W.2-Jayaram (Conductor) were examined as Management Witnesses and Exs.M-1 to M-5 were marked. Also, the delinquent, second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was examined. 14. Further, it comes to be known from the enquiry report that if only the second respondent/employee (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) had driven the offending bus bearing Registration No. TN 27/N 0643, after seeing the pedestrian crossing the road properly and applied brakes, he would have averted the accident and resultantly, concluded that the charge levelled against the workman was proved. 15. Even the First Respondent/Labour Court (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) had clearly rendered a categorical finding in its Award in I.D.No.141 of 1999 dated 15.07.2003. In paragraph No.8 of the said Award, it had opined in no uncertain terms that it was true that a driver riding a heavy vehicle should make an endeavour to stop the vehicle and after seeing the lorry coming on the opposite side, then he should have driven his vehicle slowly. However, the First Respondent/Labour Court (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) had observed that there was no direct evidence to show that the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was responsible for driving the vehicle in a reckless fashion. 16. Likewise, in Paragraph No.9 of the Award in I.D. No. 141 of 1999 dated 15.07.2003, the Labour Court had clearly held that the Bus Conductor, in his statement (before the domestic enquiry), had clearly stated that a lorry came on the opposite side. But the factum of lorry coming in the opposite side was not made mention of by the second respondent/workman in his explanation submitted before the Management/Transport Corporation. If only the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) had seen the lorry coming on the opposite side, then he should have averted the accident as clearly held by the First Respondent/Labour Court (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004). 17. If only the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) had seen the lorry coming on the opposite side, then he should have averted the accident as clearly held by the First Respondent/Labour Court (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004). 17. Inasmuch as the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) was slightly negligent (in the opinion of the Labour Court), it awarded a mitigating punishment by setting aside the dismissal from service of the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) on 29.09.2008 and modified the Award of the Labour Court in I.D.No.141 of 1999 dated 15.07.2003 by ordering reinstatement without backwages, but granted him with continuity of service and other consequential benefits. 18. It was clearly mentioned in Ex.M-2, the accident report, that the principal mistake was on the part of the pedestrian for the happening of the accident etc. and further, in the accident vehicle note, there was a skid mark and the offending bus had stopped at a distance of 55 feet from the place of accident. This factor, viz., the skid mark seen at the place of occurrence and the very fact that the offending bus had gone past at a distance of 55 feet from the place of accident clearly showed that the second respondent/workman had also contributed by means of contributory negligence and was responsible to the happening of the accident (notwithstanding the fact the pedestrian, Palaniappan, came crossing the road suddenly). Also, the principle of res ipsa loquitor (the occurrence speaks for itself) will apply squarely to the present case on hand. 19. As per Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, the First Respondent/Labour Court, Salem, is enjoined with the power to adjudicate in a case where it is satisfied that the order of discharge or dismissal was not justified, it may, it its Award, set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement of the workman on such terms and conditions, if any, as it thinks fit or give such other relief to the workman including the Award of any lesser punishment in lieu of discharge or dismissal as the circumstances of the case may require. 20. As a matter of fact, Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the first time, gave power to a Labour Court to subjectively satisfying itself whether a particular misconduct was proved. 20. As a matter of fact, Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, for the first time, gave power to a Labour Court to subjectively satisfying itself whether a particular misconduct was proved. To put it differently, Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 envisages the Labour Court/Tribunal to differ from the Management both in respect of a finding of misconduct arrived at by it as well as the quantum of punishment inflicted by it. It is to be remembered that the powers are in tune with the recommendation of the International Labour Organisation. 21. Be that as it may, the First Respondent/Labour Court, exercising its discretion as per Section 11 A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and also after scrutinising and analysing the entire gamut and oral and documentary evidence available on record, had come to a resultant conclusion that the punishment of dismissal from service in respect of the second respondent/ workman (in W.P. No.22671 of 2004) dated 29.09.2008 was an excessive one and passed a modified Award by directing reinstatement of the second respondent with continuity of service with other benefits, but without back wages. The said Award passed by the First Respondent/Labour Court (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) does not suffer from any serious material irregularity or patent illegality. Further, there was no perversity of approach/ misleading by the First Respondent/Labour Court warranting interference in the hands of this Court in respect of the Award passed by the Labour Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Consequently, the writ petition filed by the Petitioner/ Transport Corporation (W.P.No.22671 of 2004) fails. 22. In view of the fact that this Court has upheld the Award in I.D. No. 141 of 1999 dated 15.07.2003 passed by the First Respondent/Labour Court, the Writ Petition (W.P.No.36896 of 2006) filed by the second respondent/workman (in W.P.No.22671 of 2004) against the denial of back wages is dismissed by this Court to promote substantial cause of justice to prevent aberration of justice.23. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed. Connected M. Ps. are closed. No costs.