Judgment 1. The second respondent/Workman was employed as a Conductor with the writ petitioner Corporation. He was issued with a charge memo dated 12.06.2001 alleging that he failed to inform about the bribe of Rs.200/- received by the Driver viz., Gunasekaran from a private bus conductor. Subsequently, the workman was dismissed from service by an order dated 20.12.2001 after holding enquiry. 2. The second respondent took up his non-employment before the first respondent Labour Court in I.D.No.318 of 2002. The first respondent Labour Court passed an Award, dated 27.12.2005 holding that the charge was not proved. 3. The following passages found in paragraphs 13 and 14 of the Award dated 27.12.2005 may be usefully extracted:- "13. Ex.M1. Complaint dt. 6.6.2001 is first in point of time, based on which the entire episode is built. It is evident from Ex.M.1 complaint that while the driver of the bus (route No.21A) in the process of receiving bribe from the private bus conductor, the petitioner was sitting inside the bus of the respondent and it is further stated that the act of receiving bribe by the driver is known to the petitioner. Further, Ex.M.2 charge memo-cum-suspension order dated 12.06.2001 also manifest the alleged act of the driver Gunasekaran is known to the petitioner.... 14. ...Absolutely no materials are adduced on the side of the respondent to hold that neither the petitioner accepted the bribe nor he abetted the mis-conduct. From the available materials adduced on the side of the respondent, this Court is of the view that it is unsafe to hold that the petitioner also participated in the alleged mis-conduct. The claim of the respondent is the driver Gunasekaran went over and received bribe from the private bus conductor in order to provide timing gap to the private bus is witnessed by the petitioner. In the present case, no materials are available on record to hold that the petitioner participated in the mis-conduct." 4. After holding that the charge was not proved against the second respondent/workman, the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the workman with 25% backwages and other attendant benefits. 75% of the backwages was deprived on the presumption that the workman could have been gainfully employed during non-employment period. However, the workman has not chosen to question the said Award. Pursuant to the Award, the workman was reinstated and he joined duty on 03.11.2006 before filing this original Application. 5. 75% of the backwages was deprived on the presumption that the workman could have been gainfully employed during non-employment period. However, the workman has not chosen to question the said Award. Pursuant to the Award, the workman was reinstated and he joined duty on 03.11.2006 before filing this original Application. 5. Taking into account the aforesaid facts and particularly, when the Labour Court exercised its power under Section 11-A of the I.D.Act and recorded its finding by giving cogent reasons for holding that the charge was not proved, I am not inclined to interfere with the Award. The writ petition fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petition is closed.