JUDGMENT V. Suri Appa Rao , J.—At the stage of admission, with the consent of both the Counsel, the matter is taken up for hearing and disposed of The appellant has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 28-9-2011 in W.P. No. 35808 of 2011, whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant-Corporation on the ground that the Labour Court passed an award based on the past history of the respondent and also on the ground that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence of the respondent and Driver of the Jeep. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows.- The respondent was a driver in the appellant-Corporation. On 16-6-2006 while he was driving the bus bearing No. KA-19/F-2026, the bus dashed against the Jeep bearing Registration No. KA-21/3760, on account of which, two passengers traveling in the Jeep died on the spot and other passengers sustained injuries and the vehicle was damaged. Therefore, the appellant-Corporation initiated enquiry against the respondent for the misconduct of rash and negligent driving by framing Articles of Charge and an enquiry was held on 18-6-2007. After the Enquiry Officer submitted his report, the appellant-Corporation passed the order of dismissal of the respondent from service. Aggrieved by the order of dismissal, the respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Court under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 3. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, set aside the dismissal order passed by the appellant-Corporation and allowed the reference in part holding that the respondent is entitled for backwages to the extent of 25% from the date of his dismissal till the date of his reinstatement. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Presiding Officer of the Labour Court, the appellant filed the writ petition, on the ground that the order passed by the Labour Court is disproportionate to the charge proved against the respondent-driver. The learned Single Judge after hearing confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-driver was solely responsible for causing the accident which resulted in the death of two passengers travelling in the Jeep and injuries to other inmates of the Jeep. 6. 4. We have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant. 5. The learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the respondent-driver was solely responsible for causing the accident which resulted in the death of two passengers travelling in the Jeep and injuries to other inmates of the Jeep. 6. The learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court considering the evidence on record observed that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence of the drivers of both the vehicles i.e., respondent and driver of the Jeep. Therefore, the appellant-Corporation is not justified in holding that the respondent alone is responsible and dismissed him from service. Therefore, the order of dismissal is set aside and modified the order by directing the appellant to reinstate the respondent to the original post with back wages to the extent of 25%. The learned Single Judge considering the well-considered order passed by the Labour Court confirmed the findings of the Labour Court. 7. The respondent examined the conductor of the bus before the Labour Court. He has clearly deposed that the Jeep was coming from upward direction and bus was going in down gradient and to save two pedestrians who suddenly came on the road, the driver of the Jeep took the Jeep to the extreme right side of the road and in that process dashed against the bus. 8. Therefore, relying on the evidence of the conductor the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court held that the accident took place due to the contributory negligence of both the drivers. Considering the evidence on record and the circumstances of the case, the learned Presiding Officer, was justified in modifying the dismissal order. The learned Single Judge also confirmed the well-considered order of the Labour Court. 9. Therefore, we are of the view that there are no reasonable grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the learned Single Judge. The appeal is therefore dismissed. Consequently, I.A. No. 1 of 2011 filed for condonation of delay is hereby rejected.