Judgment : 1. Since both these writ petitions arise out of the single award made in I.D.No.169 of 2003, dated 07.11.2008 on the file of the Labour Court, Trichirapalli, both the writ petitions were heard together and they are disposed of by this common order. 2. Mr.A.Palanichamy, the petitioner in W.P.No.5949 of 2009 (hereinafter referred as workman) was working as a driver in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, Madurai Division-IV Limited, Dindigul. (Hereinafter referred as Management). On 22.06.1999, the petitioner/workman drove the bus bearing Regn.No.TN-57-N-0950 belonging to the Management. The bus took off its trip from Trichirappalli Bus-stand at 9.50 a.m and it was proceeding to Palani. When it was passing through Aalampatti Pudur Village, the bus dashed against another bus, bearing Regn.No.TN-45-N-1371, which was coming from the opposite direction. In the said accident, the respondent Corporation bus was severely damaged and one passenger travelled in the bus lost his life and 28 passengers sustained serious injuries. On these allegations, a charge-memorandum was issued to the petitioner by the Management on 03.07.1999 alleging that the accident had occurred due to the rash and negligent driving on the part of the petitioner. The petitioner denied the charges. Therefore, an Enquiry Officer was appointed to hold enquiry into the charges. The petitioner participated in the enquiry. The Enquiry Officer, thereafter submitted an enquiry report on 19.04.2000, holding the petitioner guilty of the charges. Based on the same, a second show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner on 31.01.2001. The petitioner disputed the findings of the Enquiry Officer. Thereafter, by order dated 12.04.2001, the petitioner was dismissed from service. 3. Challenging the same, the petitioner/workman raised an Industrial Dispute before the Labour Court, Trichirappalli, in I.D.No.169 of 2003. In the said Industrial Dispute, the petitioner/workman did not question the fairness of the enquiry held. Therefore, no oral evidence was let in on either side. The documents relating to the enquiry proceedings were all exhibited in evidence. Finally, the Labour Court by award dated 07.11.2008 found that the petitioner/workman was guilty of rashness and negligence, which was the cause for the accident. However, the Labour Court took the view that dismissal, as a punishment, is shockingly, disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner/workman in service as a fresh entrant without backwages and without continuity of service. However, the Labour Court took the view that dismissal, as a punishment, is shockingly, disproportionate to the gravity of the offence. Accordingly, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner/workman in service as a fresh entrant without backwages and without continuity of service. Challenging the findings that the petitioner/workman was guilty of charges and denial of continuity of service and backwages, the petitioner/workman has come up with W.P.(md).No.5949 of 2009 and the Management has come up with W.P.(md).No.5317 of 2009 challenging reinstatement ordered by the Labour Court. That is why, these two writ petitions are before this Court for final disposal. 4. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/workman and the learned counsel appearing for the Management/Corporation and I have also perused the records carefully. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/workman would submit that there is absolutely no evidence to hold that the petitioner was guilty of rashness and negligence. 6. But the learned counsel appearing for the Management would submit that there was ample evidence let in before the Enquiry Officer in respect of the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner. He would further submit that the Labour Court was right in holding that the petitioner was guilty of the charges. 7. I have considered the above submissions. 8. Admittedly, this is a case of head on collision, involving two vehicles. The materials on record including the inspection report would go to show that the accident had taken place on the western side of the road. The vehicle driven by the petitioner was proceeding towards south. From the narration of facts, which have been given weightage by the Labour Court, it could be seen that the place of occurrence itself would indicate that the petitioner was rash and negligent in driving. The bus had gone to the western side of the road, instead of keeping to its left. The principle of res ipsa loquitur would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It should be stated that in a domestic enquiry, it is not necessary to prove the charges beyond any reasonable doubts, as it is done in criminal cases. It is suffice if charges are proved by applying the principles of preponderance of probabilities. The principle of res ipsa loquitur would squarely apply to the facts of the present case. It should be stated that in a domestic enquiry, it is not necessary to prove the charges beyond any reasonable doubts, as it is done in criminal cases. It is suffice if charges are proved by applying the principles of preponderance of probabilities. Though the principle of res ipsa loquitur and preponderance of probabilities are not applicable to criminal cases in Indian Courts, it is certainly applicable to the Civil Proceedings or to a domestic enquiry. In the case on hand, since there is no explanation as to why the vehicle had gone to the western side of the road, I have to necessarily hold that the principle ofres ipsa loquitur would certainly apply to the present case and the same goes to prove that the petitioner was guilty of rashness and negligence. 9. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/workman would submit that the Labour Court was not right in fixing the entire liability on the part of the petitioner/workman. But this argument deserves to be rejected for the simple reason that even if the petitioner has been found partly responsible for the accident, still he cannot escape in the disciplinary proceedings as minimal amount of negligence or rashness would amount to misconduct. It is not a claim case, in which this Court would estimate as to what extent, the petitioner was responsible for the accident so as to fix the compensation. In a disciplinary proceedings, even in a case of composite negligence, a person, who has contributed for the accident out of his rashness and negligence, however small it may be, still is liable to be punished. In my considered opinion, the Labour Court is right in holding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct warranting punishment. 10. Turning to the quantum of punishment, in my considered opinion, as it has been stated by the Labour Court, punishment of dismissal is certainly shockingly disproportionate. As has been pointed by the Labour Court, the petitioner alone is not responsible for the accident, as it was a head on collision and therefore punishment of dismissal will not be appropriate. 10. Turning to the quantum of punishment, in my considered opinion, as it has been stated by the Labour Court, punishment of dismissal is certainly shockingly disproportionate. As has been pointed by the Labour Court, the petitioner alone is not responsible for the accident, as it was a head on collision and therefore punishment of dismissal will not be appropriate. Having regard to all these facts and circumstances of the case, the Labour Court has rightly directed that the petitioner shall be reinstated in service as a fresh entrant and he shall not be entitled for backwages and continuity of service and other attendant benefits. 11. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit, on instructions, from the petitioner, who is also present in Court, that the petitioner does not insist for backwages, but he only insists for continuity of service. 12. In my considered opinion, the award of the Labour Court directing reinstatement of the petitioner in service as a fresh entrant does not require interference, as it is in accordance with law. As a result, I hold that the petitioner is not entitled for backwages and continuity of service. Consequently, the writ petition in W.P.(md).No.5949 of 2009, filed by the workman is liable to be dismissed. The petitioner's reinstatement in service as a fresh entrant, in my considered opinion meets the ends of justice. This direction has been issued, going by the gravity of the misconduct and the attendant circumstances. Therefore, W.P.(md).No.5317 of 2009 also deserves to be dismissed. 13. Before parting with the case, I wish to make the following observations: Admittedly, the Labour Court, passed the award on 06.04.2009. These two writ petitions were filed in the month of June 2009. But the petitioner/workman was not reinstated in service. Thereafter, on the orders of this Court, the Management has started to pay the wages as required under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Thus, the wages under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been paid by the Management to the petitioner for the past 63 months. At least, per month, an average amount of Rs.3,900/-has been paid by the Management. Till date, approximately, a sum of Rs.2,45,000/-has been paid to the petitioner/workman by the Management. But, no work has been extracted by the Management, because, he was not reinstated. At least, per month, an average amount of Rs.3,900/-has been paid by the Management. Till date, approximately, a sum of Rs.2,45,000/-has been paid to the petitioner/workman by the Management. But, no work has been extracted by the Management, because, he was not reinstated. I do not find any logic behind the management to chose to pay the wages to the employee as required under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, without choosing to reinstate him in service so that work could have been extracted. This has resulted in a sheer wastage of public money. The respondent is solely responsible for having spent such a great amount of public money in such a lethargic and callous manner. This is not the only case, this Court has seen such attitude of the managements of the Transport Corporations, owned by the Tamil Nadu Government. In several cases, which this Court has dealt with, the Transport Corporation has chosen to pay the wages under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act for years together, without reinstating the employees into service. It is common knowledge that nowadays, the Transport Corporations are suffering from financial constraints. It is also well known that the Motor Accidents Claims awards passed by the Tribunals could not be satisfied and as a result, a number of buses belonging to Corporations have been attached and they are stationed in the Subordinate Court premises. When such is the financial position of the Transport Corporations, I do not understand the reason behind the decision taken frequently, by the Managements to pay the wages under Section 17(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, for no work done. As already pointed out, it is a sheer wastage of public money. At least, in future, the Managements shall take scientific and prudent action so as to avoid the waste of public money like this. 14. In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed with the above observations. Consequently, connected M.P.(md).No.1 of 2009 in W.P.(md).No.5949 of 2009 is also dismissed. No costs.