JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner is before this Court for challenging the denial of back wages by the Labour Court vide its award dated 30/04/1993 in Ref. (IDA) No.16/1983. 2. I have heard Mr.Warad, learned Advocate for the petitioner at length and Mr.Goyanka, learned Advocate on behalf of the respondent/Corporation. 3. The petitioner joined the employment of the Corporation as a Driver in 1978 and within 2 years, caused an accident on 25/08/1980 in broad day light, which resulted in the death of 3 persons, who were riding a motor cycle and injuring 7 persons. 4. Grievance is that the Labour Court, while reinstating the petitioner with continuity of service, did not grant back wages. The thrust of the petitioner's argument is that the respondent/corporation appeared in Criminal Case No.558/1980 as well as in MACP No.15/1981 filed by the legal heirs of the deceased and took a stand that the petitioner was not driving in a rash and negligent manner. The accident occurred because there was a sudden loss of a air pressure and the brakes of the bus have failed. The petitioner was acquitted from the criminal proceedings. It is, therefore, submitted that when the accident did not occur on account of the negligence of the petitioner and in the light of the written statement filed by the Corporation before the Motor Accidents Claim Tribunal, the conclusion drawn by the Enquiry Officer in the enquiry was unsustainable. Naturally, the Labour Court quashed and set aside the enquiry. 5. I find that a denovo enquiry was conducted before the Labour Court. Considering the evidence on record, the Labour Court concluded that the Corporation had succeeded in proving the misconducts against the petitioner/employee. It was also proved that the hand brakes of the bus were in working condition. 6. I also find that the Labour Court, while concluding in paragraph No.9 of the impugned award has held that the misconduct has been proved against the petitioner, yet granted him reinstatement with continuity of service, despite the said accident having caused the death of 3 motor cyclists and injuring 7 pedestrians. What is noteworthy is that the petitioner was reversing the bus and ploughed the bus into a crowded Vruddheshwar bus stand thereby killing 3 human beings and injuring 7. What is noteworthy is that the petitioner was reversing the bus and ploughed the bus into a crowded Vruddheshwar bus stand thereby killing 3 human beings and injuring 7. I find that the Labour Court has been unduly generous in granting reinstatement to the petitioner with continuity when such a horrific accident occurred. He had put in only 2 years of employment. In my view, back wages have been rightly denied. 7. The Corporation has not challenged the award granting reinstatement with continuity of service to the petitioner. It is stated across the bar that the petitioner, thereafter was reinstated on 06/07/1993, continued in service and he retired on 31/05/2012. Learned Advocate for the respondent / MSRTC submits that all the retiral dues and benefits have already been extended to the petitioner. 8. This petition is, therefore, dismissed. Rule is discharged. 9. Pending civil applications, if any, do not survive and are disposed of.