JUDGMENT : N. Kirubakaran, J. 1. The appeal has been preferred by the Transport Corporation against allowing of the writ petition filed by the workman, challenging the Award passed by the Labour Court, Madurai, by which the Labour Court denied back wages. 2. Brief facts of the case are as follows: (a)The first respondent/workman was employed as a driver in the appellant Transport Corporation. On 10.04.1999, he drove the bus bearing Regn. No. TN-59 N 0599, belonging to the Appellant Corporation and the said vehicle met with an accident, killing a pedestrian. Alleging that the accident was due to the rash and negligent driving of the vehicle by the first respondent/workman, a charge memo was issued on 07.05.1999, based on which a domestic enquiry was conducted. The first respondent/workman participated in the enquiry. Finally, the Enquiry Officer held that the charges against the first respondent/workman stood proved. Based on the Enquiry Report, the first respondent/workman was dismissed from service by the appellant Corporation, by order dated 27.04.2000. (b) Challenging the said order of dismissal, the first respondent/workman raised an Industrial Dispute in I.D.No.60 of 2005. After enquiry, the Labour Court passed an Award, dated 18.06.2009, wherein the Labour Court held that the finding of the Enquiry Officer that the charges stood proved is not correct and therefore the order of dismissal, dismissing the workman from service is liable to be set aside. After holding so, though the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the first respondent/workman in service with continuity of service, back wages wore not directed to be granted to the first respondent/workman, holding that the first respondent/workman would have gainfully employed elsewhere during the interregnum period. (c)Challenging the said Award of the Labour Court, the first respondent/workman filed a writ petition against the denial of back wages and other attendant benefits. After hearing both the parties, a learned Single Judge of this Court held that the denial of back wages is correct, however, the past salary of the workman could, notionally, be fixed and calculated for the purpose of fixing future salary from the date of reinstatement and for all other benefits like pension, etc. Against the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant Transport Corporation. 3. Heard Mr. A. Jeyaram, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/workman. 4. Against the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed by the appellant Transport Corporation. 3. Heard Mr. A. Jeyaram, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. A. Rahul, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent/workman. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that the conclusion of the Labour Court that the charges were not proved is not correct. However, it is seen that there is no appeal/writ petition filed by the appellant Corporation against the finding of the Labour Court that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent/workman. Secondly, the learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as per Rule 14 of the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund Trust Rules, the pensionable service of a member shall be determined with reference to the contributions received or are receivable on his behalf in the Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation Employees Pension Fund, but, in the case of the first respondent/workman, during the period of non-employment, there was no deduction with regard to contribution towards pension fund from the first respondent/workman salary and therefore he is not entitled to the pensionary benefits. 5. It is found by the Labour Court as well as the learned Single Judge that there was no negligence on the part of the first respondent/workman. When such is the position, the non-employment of the first respondent/workman cannot be employed against the first respondent/workman and therefore the submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant in this regard is not acceptable. With regard to non-payment of contribution towards pension fund during the period of non-employment, the first respondent/workman was not paid salary and therefore there could be no deduction towards contribution to pension fund. In any case, the amount of contribution towards pension fund that the first respondent/workman would have paid during the non-employment period can be recovered from the amount payable to the first respondent/workman or adjusted from his present salary. 6. In view of the above, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed with the above observation relating to deduction of past contribution towards pension fund. No order as to costs. Connected miscellaneous petition is also dismissed.