( 1 ) THE Writ Petition is filed questioning the award of the Labour Court dated 19-6-1996 in I. D. No. 421 of 1992 insofar as it denied backwages and other benefits to the petitioner.

( 2 ) THE petitioner was appointed as a driver in the 2nd. respondent-Corporation on 6-5-1968. On 5-11-1987 while he was operating the bus on the route Kamareddy to Badrachalam, an accident took place at modugula Gudem (Illendu) in which an old man died. Disciplinary enquiry was initiated against the petitioner for causing the accident by negligent driving of the bus and by order dated 28-7-1988 he was removed from service. Aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner preferred appeal to the Appellate Authority which also dismissed the appeal. Thereafter, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute under Section 2-A (2) of the Industrial disputes Act, 1947 (the Act, for brevity) in i. D. No. 37 of 1991. The Labour Court, after considering the matter held that the punishment of removal is disproportionate to the misconduct and set aside the order of removal and directed the respondent-Corporation to reinstate the petitioner into service as a fresh candidate without any other benefits like backwages etc. Insofar as the award denying the backwages and other benefits to the petitioner is concerned, the present writ petition has been filed by the workman.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the Labour Court having found that the petitioner was not negligent in driving the bus and on account of certain unforeseen circumstances the accident took place and further taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner was acquitted in the criminal case, held that the punishment of removal from service imposed on the petitioner, was disproportionate to the misconduct and directed the respondent- corporation to reinstate the petitioner as a fresh candidate. It is his further case that the Labour Court having found that the punishment of removal was disproportionate to the misconduct ought to have granted full backwages and other attendant benefits to the petitioner since the petitioner cannot be found fault with for causing the accident.

( 4 ) THE learned Standing Counsel for corporation submits that this Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of india would not interfere with the award of the Labour Court, more especially with the discretion exercised by the Labour Court in granting the relief. She, therefore, submits that the award of the Labour Court is legal and justified.

( 5 ) I have perused the award and also heard the learned Counsel for the parties.

( 6 ) IN the instant case, the petitioner had caused the accident in which a old man died. But the circumstances under which the accident took place has been narrated by the Labour Court as follows:". . . . . . . . . THE petitioner/driver has stated before the Chief Inspector during the enquiry held by him that while the petitioner was driving the bus after starting from Kamareddy bus station and after passing Yellendu village reaching near Modugulagudem the driver observed that a person was coming in opposite direction with a cow and calf and that the said calf suddenly came from right side to the middle of the road as such the driver in order to save the calf swerved the bus to the left side and immediately taken the bus to the right side when doing so an old man suddenly came from left to right side dashed the bus and fell down. The service conductor s statement made during the enquiry also reveal that the driver s version is correct and that to avoid hitting the calf he turned towards left. The passengers have also given a statement to the similar effect. It is to be seen that the respondent Depot manager viewed that the delinquent petitioner should have driven the vehicle in a controlled speed anticipating such exigencies at any moment. From the scrutiny of the various statements by the various persons including the driver it is made clear that