ORDER : 1. The present writ petition is directed against the correctness of the award passed by the learned Labour Court, Salem, in I.D. No. 25 of 2004 dated 14.2.2007 and to quash the same. The first respondent, learned Labour court ordered the petitioner management to reinstate the second respondent A. Baskaran, with continuity of service but without back wages. Assailing the said order passed by the Learned Labour Court, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner Transport Corporation submitted that the second respondent having joined service in the petitioner Transport Corporation as a driver from 16.5.1985, met with a fatal accident on 28.10.2001, by causing rash and negligent driving of the bus bearing Registration No. TN-27-N1348, on its trip from Salem to Chennai. In the accident that took place near Kothampadi, two persons coming in a motor cycle, were hit and they died on the spot. Moreover, the bus has also got damaged. 2. In view of the fatal accident, the petitioner was issued with the charge memo dated 7.11.2001 and he was also placed under suspension from his duty. Although he submitted his explanation on 15.11.2001, a domestic enquiry was conducted. Finally, the petitioner Transport Corporation decided to impose major punishment against the second respondent. Unfortunately, the petitioner had committed one another fatal accident on 26.1.1995, while he was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. 0532 by causing rash and negligent driving of the vehicle. For having caused the said fatal accident, the second respondent was departmentally proceeded with by issuing show cause notice and he was imposed with the punishment of stoppage of increment for one year. Subsequently, the Criminal Court acquitted him of the charges and the said punishment was cancelled. While the second respondent was driving the vehicle on 28.10.2001, on its route from Salem to Chennai at mid night at 22.30 hours, he caused the fatal accident taking away the life of two of the innocent motorists on the spot. The bus driven by him, was also damaged. Because of that, the petitioner was departmentally proceeded with by issuing a charge memo dated 7.11.2011 and was also placed under suspension. While the second respondent submitted his explanation on 15.12.2007, the petitioner-management Transport Corporation found that the explanation was not satisfactory and an enquiry officer was appointed and an enquiry was also conducted. Because of that, the petitioner was departmentally proceeded with by issuing a charge memo dated 7.11.2011 and was also placed under suspension. While the second respondent submitted his explanation on 15.12.2007, the petitioner-management Transport Corporation found that the explanation was not satisfactory and an enquiry officer was appointed and an enquiry was also conducted. After giving fair and sufficient opportunity to the second respondent, the enquiry officer found him guilty of the charges. The disciplinary authority by taking note of two fatal accidents caused by the second respondent, imposed major punishment of dismissal from service by order dated 18.9.2002. He specifically mentioned that the second respondent has also committed 51 misconducts including two fatal accidents. Challenging the dismissal order, the second respondent raised the industrial dispute in I.D. No. 25 of 2004 u/s 2A(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act. After receiving notice from the first respondent, the petitioner management filed a detailed counter pointing out the facts and circumstances under which the second respondent suffered 51 misconducts, including two fatal accidents. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Learned Labour Court by exercising the power u/s 11A of the Act, but ignoring 51 misconducts including two fatal accidents, wrongly set aside the order of dismissal and directed the petitioner management to reinstate the second respondent in service with continuity of service, but without back wages. When the learned Labour Court has got inherent power to exercise u/s 11A of the Act, two major fatal accidents caused by the second respondent and 49 misconducts committed by him, were completely over looked. Moreover, the award does not mention any reasons, warranting exercise of power u/s 11A of the Act. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside. 4. In reply to the above submission, learned counsel for the second respondent would submit that the second respondent committed fatal accident on 26.1.1995 and he was also imposed with punishment of stoppage of increment for one year. After trial, the criminal court acquitted him of all the charges. Hence the petitioner management cancelled the said punishment. Therefore, no consideration can be made on the alleged rash and negligent driving, which has resulted in fatal accident occurred on 26.1.1995. After trial, the criminal court acquitted him of all the charges. Hence the petitioner management cancelled the said punishment. Therefore, no consideration can be made on the alleged rash and negligent driving, which has resulted in fatal accident occurred on 26.1.1995. While coming to the second accident that took place on 28.10.2001, the labour court has taken note of the stand taken by the petitioner management that the victims were also responsible for the accident. In view of the fact that the victims were also responsible for the accident that took place on 28.10.2001, the labour court set aside the impugned order and therefore, no interference is called for, for the reason that the petitioner management was not directed to pay back wages for the said period. 5. This court finds no force in both of these submissions made by the learned counsel for the second respondent. Firstly, the petitioner having joined as driver of the petitioner transport corporation on 16.5.1985, while he was driving the bus of the petitioner Transport Corporation, caused fatal accident on 26.1.1995, for which he was departmentally proceeded with and simple punishment of stoppage of increment for one year was imposed. Unfortunately, in view of discharge of criminal charges against the second respondent, the departmental proceedings was also cancelled by the petitioner Transport Corporation. Subsequently, while he was working in the petitioner Transport Corporation, he had caused one another fatal accident on 28.10.2001, while he was driving the vehicle bearing Registration No. TN-27-N1348 on its trip from Salem to Chennai at midnight 22.30 hours. In the said accident, two motorists were killed. 6. In view of frequent fatal accidents and also for having suffered 49 misconducts in the petitioner transport corporation, departmental proceedings were initiated against the second respondent and finally, he was found guilty of rash and negligent driving that caused fatal accident killing two motorists on the spot and was found not suitable for the post of driver and accordingly dismissed him from service by order dated 18.9.2002. Aggrieved by the same, when the second respondent raised industrial dispute in I.D. No. 25/2004, the learned labour court failed to look into 51 punishments suffered by the second respondent during the course of his employment as a driver in the petitioner Transport Corporation and without there being any ground to exercise the inherent power u/s 11A of the Industrial Disputes Act that is meant for only deserving cases, where miscarriage of justice had occurred, wrongly the Labour Court interfered with the quantum of punishment only on the ground that the petitioner management has taken a stand in the Motor Accidents claims Tribunal saying that the victims were also negligent. Moreover, the labour court has reached the finding that there was no complaint made on the conduct of fair and proper enquiry. When the labour court recorded that there was fair and proper domestic enquiry, interference with the quantum of punishment of dismissal, when the second respondent has suffered 51 punishments, does not arise. As the said aspect is overlooked by the labour court, the impugned award is liable to be set aside and accordingly set aside. In fine, the writ petition stands allowed. No costs. Consequently the connected M.P. No. 1 of 2008 and M.P. No. 1 of 2009 are closed.