The Labour Court has the jurisdiction to review the merits of charges and set aside an order of discharge or dismissal if it is not justified, as per Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

Prayer in this writ petition is to quash the award made by the Labour Court, Cuddalore in I.D.No.129 of 1993 dated 29. 1996.

2. The brief facts necessary for disposal of the writ petition as stated in the affidavit are as follows.

(a) First respondent was appointed as driver in the petitioner Transport Corporation. While the petitioner was driving the corporation bus on 211. 1988, the bus met with an accident at about 9.55 p.m. and in the accident, three persons died. The bus owned by the Corporation was also damaged.

(b) Writ petitioner management issued charge memo on 212. 1988 to the first respondent. A criminal case was also registered against the first respondent for the offences under sections 279, 333 and 304A IPC. The Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karaikkal acquitted the first respondent in respect of the criminal charges by judgment dated 111. 1990.

(c) For the charge memo issued on 112. 1988, the first respondent submitted his explanation on 21. 1989. The explanation having been found not satisfactory, an enquiry was conducted against the first respondent and the enquiry officer found that the first respondent was guilty of the charges and submitted his report on 14. 1989. The petitioner management accepted the enquiry officers report and issued second show cause notice on 111. 1989 to show cause as to why the first respondent should not be dismissed. The first respondent submitted his explanation on 21. 1990 and thereafter the petitioner dismissed the first respondent on 18. 1990.

(d) The first respondent raised a dispute before the Labour Officer, Tanjore, and as the conciliation efforts failed, the Labour Officer submitted failure report on 15. 1991. Then the first respondent raised industrial dispute before the second respondent, which was tried as I.D.No.123 of 1993.

(e) The contention raised in the industrial dispute through the claim statement filed by the first respondent was that the person, who drove the moped, suddenly came to the middle of the road and fell down and at that time, even though first respondent applied the brake and tried to stop the bus, the vehicle got pulled towards right and hit the lamp post due to drizling at that time. The first respondent became unconscious and he was admitted in the hospital wherein he was questioned about the accident after regaining his consciousness and the first respondent explained to the Superintendent of Depot named Sriramulu as to how the accident happened.

(f) It is further case of the first respondent that while he was in the hospital, he came to know that three persons one pedestrian, one cyclist and the person, who was driving the moped died in the accident. The Karaikkal Traffic Police filed case before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Karaikkal and the criminal Court acquitted the first respondent. In the enquiry conducted, Sriramulu, Superintendent (Inspection) was examined on the side of the management and the first respondent also gave evidence. No eye witness of the incident was enquired into. The enquiry officer erroneously found that the charges are proved. The said erroneous enquiry report was accepted, based on which the first respondent was terminated from service.

(g) According to the first respondent, the said termination is contrary to the standing orders, which requires taking note of the past record of service and that the termination is contrary to Section 12(3) settlement signed in 1986, under which on acquittal by the criminal court, the management should reinstate the workman concerned.

.3. The writ petitioner management filed counter affidavit before the Labour Court and stated that due enquiry was conducted and show cause notice was issued and the reply of the first respondent having been found not satisfactory, order of punishment was imposed and therefore there is no illegality in the same.

4. The Labour Court on consideration of the entire matter, found that even though there is no procedural violation during