ORDER The petitioner was employed as a driver in the year 1992 in APSRTC. On 25.03.2003, while he was driving a bus, bearing NO.AP 11 Z 150, of Anantapur Depot, on the route Anantapur-Madanapalli, an accident has taken place, resulting in the death of driver and pillion rider of a motor bike, bearing No.AP 03 H 2878. Alleging that the petitioner drove the bus in a rash and negligent manner, and caused the accident, the 1st respondent initiated disciplinary proceedings. A charge sheet, dated 05.05.2003 was issued. The petitioner submitted his explanation. Departmental enquiry was conducted and the 1st respondent passed an order dated 26.07.2003, directing removal of the petitioner, from service. Appeal preferred by the petitioner to the Divisional Manager was dismissed on 16.01.2004, and review filed before the Regional Manager was rejected on 19.06.2004. 2. The petitioner filed I.D.No.210 of 2004 in the Labour Court, Anantapur, assailing the order of removal. Through its award, dated 29.06.2007, the labour Court modified the order of removal of the petitioner, to the one of compulsory retirement. The petitioner feels aggrieved by the award passed by the Labour Court and contends that the order of reinstatement passed by the 1st respondent ought to have been set aside. 3. Sri S.D.Gowd, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the Labour Court did not undertake any discussion worth its name, be it as to the legality or propriety of the order passed by the 1st respondent, or the proof of allegations made against the petitioner. He contends that occurrence of an accident, by itself, must not have resulted in removal of the petitioner from service, particularly when the record of the petitioner was clean, all through. According to the learned counsel, it was obligatory on the part of the Labour Court to examine the order of removal in detail and to examine the evidence, which formed part of the record, in the proceedings before the 1st respondent. He contends that the extenuating circumstances were not at all taken into account. 4. According to the learned counsel, it was obligatory on the part of the Labour Court to examine the order of removal in detail and to examine the evidence, which formed part of the record, in the proceedings before the 1st respondent. He contends that the extenuating circumstances were not at all taken into account. 4. Smt.W.V.S.Rajeswari, learned counsel for the 1st respondent, who took notice at the stage of admission, submits that the Labour Court has examined the matter from all relevant angles and though it came to the conclusion that the order of removal does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, had passed an award, granting the relief to the petitioner to enable him to draw the retirement benefits. 5. In a Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over an award passed by the Labour Court. It is well settled that the Labour Court is the final authority, as regards appreciation of the facts in an industrial dispute, before it. Further, the power of the Labour Court in moulding the relief is almost absolute, and except where the award suffers from patent illegality or perversity, the High Court cannot interfere with it. 6. In the instant case, the petitioner was removed from service on the charge that he caused a fatal accident while driving a bus belonging to the Corporation. Before the 1st respondent, the oral evidence was adduced on behalf of the management as well as the workman i.e. the petitioner. The 1st respondent passed an order directing removal of the petitioner. The appeal and review filed by the petitioner were rejected. 7. An independent and an unbiased adjudication to the matter would take place in such matters, only when they reach a Labour Court. Earlier to that, for all practical purposes, one of the parties to the dispute assumes the role of an adjudicator. Therefore, heavy burden rests upon the Labour Court to examine the matter from all possible angles, to satisfy itself as to whether there existed proper material to sustain the punishment imposed against workman. The evidence adduced, may be before the disciplinary authority, needs to be appreciated afresh, as though it was adduced before the Labour Court, for the first time. Therefore, heavy burden rests upon the Labour Court to examine the matter from all possible angles, to satisfy itself as to whether there existed proper material to sustain the punishment imposed against workman. The evidence adduced, may be before the disciplinary authority, needs to be appreciated afresh, as though it was adduced before the Labour Court, for the first time. Any lapse in this regard would have its own dent into the perfection of the adjudication by the Labour Court. Reproduction of charges or making observations with semantic changes, hardly would justify the role of a Labour Court. Oral evidence, be it on behalf of the petitioner or the 1st respondent, was not adduced before the Labour Court, obviously, because such a step was taken before the disciplinary authority. Failure on the part of the Labour Court to appreciate the evidence that already formed part of the record, would certainly render the adjudication before it, incomplete. 8. A perusal of the award passed by the Labour Court in i.D.No.210 of 2004 discloses that the Labour Court did not make any effort to discuss the oral evidence, except that casual references were made to the documentary evidence. This Court is of the view that the Labour Court ought to have paid greater attention to the matter, particularly in the context of discussing the oral evidence. 9. Hence, the Writ Petition is allowed, and the award under challenge is set aside. The matter is remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 10. There shall be no order as to costs.