JUDGMENT M.M. SUNDRESH, J. 1. The second respondent herein was working as a Driver of the appellant Corporation. As the industrial dispute relating to charter of demand was pending, an application was filed seeking approval for dismissal under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947. This was done, based upon the enquiry conducted that the second respondent was responsible for the fatal accident. The said approval petition was rejected on the ground that there is no legal evidence. The Conductor, who was traveling in the bus was not examined. Similarly no eye witness was examined. Challenging the same, the Writ Petition was filed. The learned single Judge by an elaborate order was pleased to dismiss the said writ petition and hence, the present writ appeal has been filed. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant would submit that though the principle of res ipsa loquitur, will have to be applied, the Labour Court exceeded its jurisdiction by retrieving the evidence. Therefore, the order of the learned Single Judge would further require interference. He would further submit that the rejection made by the Labour Court in not granting opportunity to the first respondent was also not a ground. 3. The learned counsel for the respondent would submit that a detailed order has been passed by both the first respondent as well as this Court. The scope of review under Article 226 of the constitution of India is very limited. He would further submit that the appellant Corporation has reinstated the second respondent, who has attained the age of superannuation. Therefore, no interference is required. 4. We have perused the order of the learned Single Judge. All the issues have been considered in detail. The learned Single Judge has rightly held that the appellant did not seek any opportunity before the enquiry officer to lead further evidence. Therefore, there is no question of allowing further evidence before the first respondent. 5. In the case on hand, admittedly, no eye witnesses were examined, except the person, who has investigated the accident alone was examined. The principle of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applicable in the said factum. When the findings of fact have been rendered by the first respondent and in the absence of any legal evidence, this Court cannot interfere with the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The principle of res ipsa loquitur cannot be applicable in the said factum. When the findings of fact have been rendered by the first respondent and in the absence of any legal evidence, this Court cannot interfere with the exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Furthermore, the second respondent has already attained the age of superannuation. Thus, accordingly, we do not find any error warranting interference in the order of this Court. Hence, this appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected M.P and C.M.P are closed. 6. The retirement benefits if not paid, the same will have to be paid in favour of the second respondent within a period of 12 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The respondent Corporation shall calculate and pay the same as per the judgment of the Division Bench, which has permitted the same to be paid in 12 equal monthly installments.