ORDER : G.R. Swaminathan, J. 1. One Kanchivanam was employed as a driver in TNSTC, Madurai Division (I) from February, 1987. The bus driven by him on 05.11.2003 met with an accident. Three persons died. In this regard, a criminal case was registered against the said Kanchivanam. The Management issued a charge memo. Domestic enquiry was conducted. The enquiry officer found that the charges framed against the writ petitioner stood established. After giving second show cause notice, the said Kanchivanam was dismissed from service on 23.01.2004. 2. The workman raised an Industrial Dispute and the same was taken on file in I.D. No. 35 of 2005 on the file of the Labour Court, Madurai. The fairness of the domestic enquiry was not challenged. On the side of the both parties, no oral evidence was adduced. On the side of Management, Ex. M1 to M9 were marked. The labour Court came to the conclusion that the charges framed against the writ petitioner were not established and set aside the order of dismissal. The labour Court directed the reinstatement of the workman. But then, the benefit of backwages was denied to him. To this effect, award dated 08.09.2009 was passed. The said award is challenged by the Management in W.P.(MD)No. 6339 of 2011. The workman has also questioned the award insofar as the denial of his backwages. W.P.(MD)No. 444 of 2013 filed by the workman is also listed before me today. 3. Heard the learned counsel on either side. 4. No doubt, the bus driven by the workman was involved in a fatal accident. Then, Crime No. 195 of 2003 was registered on the file of the Thirumangalam Taluk Police Station for the offence punishable under Sections 279, 338 and 304(A) IPC. But then, the prosecution admittedly ended in acquittal in C.C. No. 105 of 2005 on the file of the learned Judicial Magistrate No. I, Madurai on 05.09.2013. 5. The award of the labour Court was passed on 08.09.2009. The labour Court did not have the benefit of the judgment of acquittal. But then, on an independent consideration of the materials available on record, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of negligent or reckless driving. 5. The award of the labour Court was passed on 08.09.2009. The labour Court did not have the benefit of the judgment of acquittal. But then, on an independent consideration of the materials available on record, the labour Court came to the conclusion that the writ petitioner cannot be held to be guilty of negligent or reckless driving. In paragraph No. 7 and 8 of the impugned award, cogent and convincing reasons have been given by the labour Court for arriving at such finding. Exercising the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, I do not propose to interfere with the said finding. The finding of the labour Court by no stretch of imagination can be said to be improper or perverse. In such view of the matter, W.P. (MD) No. 6339 of 2011 filed by the Management stands dismissed. 6. The writ petitioner was driver. The labour Court further had not even caused a single accident. The labour Court however denied his backwages. Principally on the ground that he was a reasoned driver and that he would have been definitely employed elsewhere. Even though the approach of the labour Court is found more on conjecture, the workman submitted that he would be satisfied, if the employer's contribution is paid. 7. I am of the view that this stand of the workman is most reasonable. Therefore, this Court directs the Management to pay the employer's contribution for the period from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement. The petitioner will be entitled to continuity of service and also notional fixation of pay for the said period. Even though the workman is not eligible for the monetary benefits, he will be entitled to notional and attendant benefits, which will have to be calculated for fixing increments as well as pension. Accordingly, W.P. (MD) No. 444 of 2013 is partly allowed. No costs. Consequently, connected Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.