ORDER : A.N. Venugopala Gowda, J. The respondent, a trainee driver in the petitioner - Corporation, while on duty on 16.11.2007 drove bus bearing No. KA-09/F-3710 from Bengaluru to Mysuru and when the bus was near Channapatna Kengal Hanumantaiah Temple, in front of Kanva Cross Road, struck a pedestrian fatally and the disciplinary proceedings undertaken resulted in indictment for rash and negligent driving. He was removed from service by an order dated 27.08.2009. Assailing the said order, an application under Section 10(4-A) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, the Act) was filed in the Labour Court, Mysuru and was registered as I.I.D. No. 14/2010. Statement of objections having been filed, based on the pleadings, 5 issues were raised. Fairness of the domestic enquiry conducted having been conceded, issue No.1, treated as preliminary issue was answered in the affirmative. Documents produced by the Management were marked by consent as Exs.M1 to M23. The workman got himself examined and for the Management, affidavit evidence of Enquiry Officer was filed. Up on considering the point, whether the findings entered by the Enquiry Officer are perverse and the punishment imposed is disproportionate to the misconduct committed by the workman, by Award dated 31.07.2012, as at Annexure-F, the application was allowed and order of removal from service dated 27.08.2009 was set aside and Management was directed to reinstate workman into service with 50% back wages, continuity of service and all other consequential benefits. Assailing the said Award, Management filed this writ petition. 2. Sri. L. Govindraj, learned advocate contended that the impugned Award is replete with errors on the face of the record, as there is flaw in appreciation of undisputed documentary evidence marked by consent. He contended that the causing of the accident resulting in death of a pedestrian having not been disputed, the facts being well within the knowledge of the workman and there being failure to satisfactorily explain the circumstances and the care he took to prevent the accident, the finding recorded by the Labour Court is perverse and arbitrary. He submitted that the principle of res ipsa loquitur having come into play and there being failure on the part of the workman in adducing acceptable evidence and discharge the burden of proof, the finding recorded in favour of the workman is illegal. He submitted that the principle of res ipsa loquitur having come into play and there being failure on the part of the workman in adducing acceptable evidence and discharge the burden of proof, the finding recorded in favour of the workman is illegal. He further submitted that the workman being a habitual offender, having been punished earlier for rash and negligent driving and there being no correction of his conduct over a period, even while employed as a trainee driver, ought to have been considered and the non consideration is arbitrary. 3. Sri. L. Govindraj filed a memo and produced an order of removal dated 09.11.2015 passed against the respondent, on account of his unauthorised absence to duty with effect from 20.10.2014 i.e., after he was reinstated into service pursuant to the interim order passed in this petition on 21.11.2013. Learned counsel submitted that the impugned order being perverse is liable to be quashed. 4. Sri. M. Y. Sreenivasan, learned advocate for the respondent, on the other hand submitted that the explanation offered by the workman having been found to be acceptable, the Labour Court is justified in holding that there is no enough evidence to conclude that the accident took place due to rash and negligent driving of the bus. Learned counsel made submissions in support of the impugned Award and sought dismissal of the petition. 5. Perused the record and considered rival contentions. Point for consideration is, whether the impugned order holding that the materials on record are not sufficient to conneelude that the accident occurred due to rash and negligent driving of bus bearing No. KA-09/F-3710 on 16.09.2007 is perverse and the impugned Award is perverse? 6. The respondent being a trainee driver and in view of report of the incident dated 16.11.2007 involving the bus which the respondent was driving leading to a fatal accident having been received, show-cause notice - Ex.M7 was issued. MW-1 was appointed as the Enquiry Officer. Domestic enquiry having been conducted, report-Ex.M19 was submitted. A copy of the report was furnished on 07.08.2009 along with the second show-cause notice. A reply dated 12.08.2009 was submitted by the workman. Disciplinary Authority having considered the matter has passed the order of removal (Ex.M23), removing the name of the respondent from the list of trainee drivers. Said order was assailed in I.I.D. No. 14/2010 before the Labour Court, Mysuru. A reply dated 12.08.2009 was submitted by the workman. Disciplinary Authority having considered the matter has passed the order of removal (Ex.M23), removing the name of the respondent from the list of trainee drivers. Said order was assailed in I.I.D. No. 14/2010 before the Labour Court, Mysuru. Counter statement was filed and issues were raised. Preliminary issue relating to fairness of enquiry having been conceded was answered in the affirmative and the documents produced by the Management were marked with consent as Exs.Ml to M23. Workman got himself examined as WW-1. The Enquiry Officer was examined by the Management as MW-1. 7. Workman having not denied the incident and occurrence of the fatal accident while he was on duty and the documents produced by the Management, marked by consent, being not in dispute, the manner of occurrence of the incident being well within the knowledge of the workman, the burden of proof should have been placed on him. Evidence of workman before the Labour Court is untrustworthy and make believe. It is unimaginable as to how he could see the driver of the vehicle moving ahead of him was found to be asleep. The bus driven by the respondent having dashed to the pedestrian, the accident has occurred and the pedestrian has succumbed to the injury. The accident sketch M-16 has not been appreciated by the Labour Court. Material evidence has been ignored and the burden of proof has been wrongly cast on the II party - Management. The approach of the Labour Court to the matter is erroneous and its finding is arbitrary and perverse. 8. As the occurrence of the accident when the workman was on duty is not in dispute and the explanation offered by him before the Labour Court being imaginary and unacceptable and in view of the documentary evidence produced and marked by consent, the misconduct alleged against the respondent has been established. 9. In view of the respondent's unautho-rised absence and there being an order of removal passed on 09.11.2015, there is no justification to examine the case with reference to the power under Section 11-A of the Act. 10. In the result, writ petition is allowed and the impugned Award is quashed. 11. No costs.