Judgment 1. The prayer in the writ petition is for issuance of Writ of Certiorari to quash the order in I.D.No.374 of 1998, dated 20.11.2001, passed by the first respondent. 2. The short facts of the case are as follows:- The petitioner/Transport Corporation submits that the second respondent was employed as a driver in the petitioner Corporation. The bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0362 was allotted to him to operate on the route Hosur to Anaikkal, on 25.12.1992. When the bus was in operation at Annilam Bus Stop, one Junior Engineer of the petitioner Corporation checked the bus. He found that the driver was seated in a passenger seat without uniform and one unauthorized person drove the vehicle. Hence, a charge memo was issued on 28.12.1992 and a domestic enquiry was ordered. The second respondent workman also participated in the enquiry. 3. After analyzing the material documents available before him, the enquiry officer found that the charges framed against him were proved and submitted a report on 04.09.1993. Based on the enquiry report, a second show cause notice was served on 18.09.1993 for which the workman submitted his explanation on 05.10.1993. Not satisfied with the explanation, the second respondent was dismissed from service by order dated 25.10.1993. 4. The second respondent was examined before the labour Court as P.W.1. The management witness deposed that the conductor of the bus stated that the person seated in the passenger seat was the driver. As per the report of the Junior Engineer marked under Ex.M2, the person, who drove the vehicle refused to give any statement. The finding of the Labour Court that the passengers ought not to have permitted an unauthorized person to drive the vehicle, is erroneous since, the passengers would not have known, who is the actual driver. Without appreciating the material documents and evidence, the Labour Court took a lenient view and ordered reinstatement with 50% backwages and continuity of service. Hence, the petitioner Corporation has filed the above writ petition to set aside the Labour Court award. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has failed to note that the employee was dismissed as early as 1996 and as such, ought not to have awarded 50% backwages for the lapse on the part of the workman. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the Labour Court has failed to note that the employee was dismissed as early as 1996 and as such, ought not to have awarded 50% backwages for the lapse on the part of the workman. Further, the Labour Court without appreciating the material evidences and documents, erroneously awarded reinstatement and continuity of service with 50% backwages. 6. Further, he has submitted that the findings of the Labour Court that the passengers ought not to have allowed the unauthorized person to drive the vehicle is not supported by any evidence. In any event, the other reasons assigned by the Labour Court for awarding reinstatement with 50% backwages and continuity of service, is not sustainable, warranting interference of this Court. 7. The learned counsel has submitted that without prejudice to the outcome of the writ petition, the petitioner management decided to reinstate the workman in the minimum scale of pay, in order to avoid payment of wages under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 8. The learned counsel appearing for the second respondent employee has submitted that the second respondent has been appointed as a driver by the Transport Corporation on 23.12.1980 and without any blemished record, he had served in the Transport Corporation. On 23.10.1993, the employee had operated the bus bearing registration No.TN29 N0362 on the Hosur to Annaikkal route. The employee had been involved in the union activities as an affective person. Therefore, a false charge has been levelled against him. The Transport Corporation had alleged that one Ramaswamy had driven the bus instead of the employee and at that point of time the employee was sitting on a passenger seat and the employee was not wearing uniform. 9. The highly competent counsel further submits that there is no lacuna by the order passed by the learned Labour Court Judge. The impugned order has been passed after recording evidence of both sides witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by them. Further, the original complainant i.e., the Junior Engineer was not examined as a witness and who was an eye witness also. 10. The impugned order has been passed after recording evidence of both sides witnesses and on perusing the documents marked by them. Further, the original complainant i.e., the Junior Engineer was not examined as a witness and who was an eye witness also. 10. After the above discussions, the Court is of the view that: i. The original complainant was not examined and who was an eye witness and he had levelled charges against the employee that he was in un-uniformed dress and sitting on a passenger seat and one Ramaswamy had driven the bus, the said complainant was not examined as such the said charge levelled against the employee has lost it's strength of conviction. ii. The original complainant stated in his complaint that one Ramaswamy had driven the bus. Therefore, the complainant must produce him before the Police authorities or through police personnel find out his credentials, which was not done. 11. On verifying the factual position of the case and arguments advanced by the very competent counsel on either side and on perusing the impugned order of the Labour Court, this Court does not find any shortenings in the conclusions arrived at by the Labour Court. Therefore, the writ petition has no compulsion to allow the writ petition. 12. This Court, by order dated 06.09.2002, directed the petitioner to deposit the entire arrears of wages and on such deposit, the employee was permitted to withdraw 50% of the deposited amount. Further, it was also directed the Labour Court to reinvest the balance 50% in a fixed deposit in Indian Overseas Bank, Salem for a minimum period of three years, renewable thereafter and the employee was permitted to withdraw the interest accrued thereon every six months periodically. 13. Now, this Court directs the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Salem to disburse the said amount to the employee forthwith, after filing a memo along with a copy of this Order. 14. In the result, the above writ petition is dismissed and the Award in I.D.No.374 of 1998, dated 20.11.2001, passed by the first respondent is confirmed and the said order is fit for execution. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. No costs.