on duty at Pondicherry depot in Route No.300 plying between Chennai and Chidambaram, on 2.12.2000, he took the vehicle bearing No.A342 around 16.30 hours and proceeded towards Chidambaram. While he was carefully driving the said vehicle on the National Highway near Morapakkam Village, at 19.00 hours, four persons travelling on a two-wheeler were proceeding before the bus on the left side. Since the rider of the two-wheeler, without noticing the bus, suddenly turned to the right side to proceed towards Morapakkam Cross Road on the National Highway, the petitioner, noticing the same, applied sudden brake. However, the two-wheeler crossed the road very close to the bus, as a result, the petitioner was unable to avert the accident. Only due to the careless and negligent driving of the twowheeler rider, the accident had occurred, for which the petitioner cannot be held responsible. The very fact that the two-wheeler was carrying four persons at the time of accident itself would show that only because of the heavy load, the rider of the two-wheeler was unable to control the vehicle. Therefore, the enquiry officer, accepting the case of the petitioner, should have come to the conclusion that the accident had occurred only due to the carelessness of the two-wheeler rider. Leaving that course, wrongly proceeding as if the accident had occurred only due to the rash and negligent driving of the petitioner, he was issued with the charge memo on 22.12.2000 alleging that without following the rules framed under the Motor Vehicles Act, the petitioner allegedly drove the vehicle rashly and negligently and caused the fatal accident of killing two persons on the spot. On receipt of the said explanation, the petitioner also gave his detailed explanation on 29.12.2000 denying all the charges. But the disciplinary authority proceeded with the enquiry by appointing an enquiry officer, who also, after completing the enquiry, gave a perverse finding. It was the claim of the petitioner that when a proper and acceptable explanation was offered by him that only because of the careless driving of the two-wheeler rider carrying four persons, the accident had occurred, this was not even adverted and noticed by the enquiry officer. Finally, accepting the report holding the petitioner guilty of all the charges, the petitioner was also furnished with the copy of the report along with the second show cause notice calling him to submit his written explanation. Accordingly, the petitioner restated his stand taken before the enquiry officer also before the disciplinary authority, who also, overlooking the vital explanation offered by the petitioner, without even giving an opportunity to cross examine anyone and more importantly, without even examining the Conductor who was in the bus at the time of accident, wrongly imposed the punishment of dismissal from service. Hence, the petitioner, questioning the correctness of the order of punishment imposed against him, approached the Labour Court by raising an industrial dispute in
