JUDGMENT 1. - Being aggrieved by the determination made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.20753/2013, declining interference with the award dated 11.10.2013, passed by the learned Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer in Reference Case No.L.C.R.39/11, the writ petitioner is in appeal against the judgment and order dated 20.01.2014, rendered in the writ petition. 2. We have heard Mr. Kailash Chandra Sharma, the learned counsel for the appellant/writ-petitioner. 3. Briefly stated the facts, indispensable for the present adjudication, are that the appellant/writ-petitioner, by order dated 22.10.2005, was appointed as a driver with the respondent-Nigam on contract basis until further orders at a fixed pay of Rs. 2100/- per month. The conditions where under the contract employment was provided, inter alia mentioned that his engagement was purely temporary and was terminable without prior notice, either if his services were not required, or were found to be unsatisfactory, or if he was found to be guilty of misbehaviour with any officer/employee of the respondent-Nigam. Eventually, by order dated 21.08.2007, his services were terminated on the ground that in violation of the conditions, subject to which he had been engaged on contract basis, he had caused a fatal accident with the vehicle driven by him. The appellant/writ-petitioner, having raised an industrial dispute, the same was referred to the learned Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal, Ajmer, which by its award dated 30.07.2012, maintained the termination of his services. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant/writ-petitioner approached this Court with S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13271/2012, which was disposed of on 18.03.2013 by remitting the matter to the learned Labour Court with a direction for fresh disposal after giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence on the charge against him. The respondent-Nigam was left at liberty to prove the charge and the appellant/writ petitioner to rebut the same by adducing respective evidence. This order was passed noticing the fact that the termination of services of the appellant/writ-petitioner was in view of the fact that he had caused an accident of the vehicle driven by him, which entitled him to an opportunity of hearing before being ousted from the service. 5. On remand, both the parties adduced the evidence. Whereas the respondent-Nigam examined Jyeshtha Mal Kantharia, the appellant/writ-petitioner offered his oral version. 5. On remand, both the parties adduced the evidence. Whereas the respondent-Nigam examined Jyeshtha Mal Kantharia, the appellant/writ-petitioner offered his oral version. The learned Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, on a consideration of the evidence on record, returned the finding that the charge levelled against the appellant/writ-petitioner that he had caused an accident of the vehicle driven by him due to his negligence, stood proved and thus, answered the reference against him. He, having unsuccessfully challenged the award dated 11.10.2013 before the learned Single Judge, is in appeal. 6. Mr. K.C. Sharma has argued that in absence of any enquiry into the charge, on which the services of the appellant/writ-petitioner had been terminated, the learned Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal as well as the learned Single Judge had erred in declining to annul the impugned decision of the respondent-Nigam. Contending that the appellant/writ-petitioner, in fact, had been appointed on the basis of selection and that he, by no means, was a contractual hand, the learned counsel has insisted that in the facts and circumstances of the case, it is a fit case where by an appropriate writ, order or direction, he (appellant/writ-petitioner) ought to be restored in service with all consequential service benefits. To reinforce his pleas, the learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Dr. Geetamohan v. State of Rajasthan, 2005(4) WLC(Raj.) 93 . 7. We have examined the pleaded facts and also the documents on record. The arguments advanced have also been duly considered. 8. The operative portion of the judgment and order dated 18.03.2013, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13271/2012, whereby the matter had been remitted to the learned Labour Court, is extracted herein below:- "In view of the above, the impugned award of the learned Labour Court is set aside. The matter is remitted back to the Labour Court to hear and decide the matter afresh after giving opportunity to lead evidence by both the parties on issue of charges against the workman. The Corporation would be at liberty to prove the charge made against the petitioner and in rebuttal, the petitioner would be at liberty to produce his own evidence. The reference may then be answered." 9. The Corporation would be at liberty to prove the charge made against the petitioner and in rebuttal, the petitioner would be at liberty to produce his own evidence. The reference may then be answered." 9. This direction, to reiterate, was issued, having noticed that the disengagement of the appellant/writ-petitioner had been due to the accident caused by him, warranting an opportunity of hearing to him prior to termination of his services. It is not disputed that this decision had been accepted by the parties, in toto, and as a consequence, evidence was led by them before the learned Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal thereafter. A plain reading of the award dated 11.10.2013 would reveal that the learned Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, being fully conscious of the purport of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 18.03.2013, did not only permit the parties to lead evidence but had also analyzed the same and concluded on the basis thereof, that the accident had occurred due to uncontrolled driving of the vehicle, involved, by the appellant/writ-petitioner, which was evident, amongst others, from the fact that the place of occurrence bore the tyre marks of his vehicle to the extent of 10 feet, on being dragged on application of brakes. The evidence on record also disclosed, inter alia, that in connection with the accident, a police case had been registered, in which a charge of rash driving against the appellant/writ petitioner had also been made. The learned Labour Court also recorded that by such negligent and rash driving, the appellant/writ-petitioner had also exposed the passengers of his vehicle to the risk of their lives. This finding, as a matter of fact, had been recorded on an assessment of the evidence adduced in reference before the learned Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal which by no means, can be denounced to be unfounded and dehors the records. 10. The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, while noticing the above evidence, also recorded the fact that in the accident, the driver of the truck, with which the appellant/writ-petitioner had collided, did die on the spot. On an overall consideration, it was, thus, held that no interference with the award was warranted. 11. 10. The learned Single Judge, as the impugned judgment and order would reveal, while noticing the above evidence, also recorded the fact that in the accident, the driver of the truck, with which the appellant/writ-petitioner had collided, did die on the spot. On an overall consideration, it was, thus, held that no interference with the award was warranted. 11. In the face of the factual backdrop, as above, and the compliance of the directions contained in the judgment and order dated 18.03.2013, passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13271/2012 and the unqualified acceptance thereof by the appellant/writ-petitioner, the plea of want of enquiry into the charge leading to the termination of his services, lacks persuasion. The appellant/writ-petitioner, having accepted the operative directions, as made in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13271/2012 and having, in compliance thereof, adduced his evidence before the learned Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal, this contention is not available to him at this point of time. A bare perusal of the order of his appointment, would demonstrate that the same had been on contractual basis subject to the conditions, amongst others, as referred to here-in-above. On a consideration of the evidence adduced by the parties before the learned Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal after remand, we are also of the view that the finding recorded on an evaluation thereof by the learned Labour Court and the learned Single Judge, does not merit any interference. Having regard to the limited scope of scrutiny in the instant appeal, we see no convincing reason to take a view different from the one adopted by the learned Labour Court & Industrial Tribunal and the learned Single Judge. The finding being based on the evidence on record and there being no apparent illegality discernible, no interference with the impugned judgment and order is called for. 12. The decision in Dr. Geetamohan(supra), is distinguishable on facts. There, the petitioner had been appointed on contract basis in a project and though it continued till the year 2007, his services were terminated though not unsatisfactory and that too without affording opportunity of hearing to him. The facts here are distinctly different and, therefore, this decision is of no avail to the appellant/writ petitioner.The appeal is, thus, dismissed.Appeal dismissed. *******