ORDER These two writ petitions are filed, in relation to an award dated 7.6.2005, passed by the Labour Court, Guntur, in J.D. No.I35 of 2000. For the sake of convenience, the parties are referred to, as arrayed in W.P. No.7814 of 2008. 2. The petitioner is employed as a driver in the Avanigadda Depot of APSRTC. On 29.9.1998, he was driving an Express Service from Nagayalanka to Guntur. An accident took place, resulting in the death of a cyclist. Charge-sheet, dated 5.8.1998, was issued to him, and not being satisfied with the explanation offered by the petitioner, the Depot Manager directed departmental enquiry. The enquiry officer found that the charge framed against him is proved. On the basis of the said finding, the petitioner was removed from service, through order dated 29.9.1998. The departmental remedies of appeal and review, availed by the petitioner, was not successful. Hence, he approached the Labour Court, by filing I.D., No.135 of 2000, under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act (for short "the Act"). Through its award dated 7.6.2005, the Labour Court had set aside the order of the removal, and directed reinstatement of the petitioner, as a casual driver, with back wages, at the rate of Rs.81/- per day, from 5.5.1998 till the date of the award. It was also directed that the petitioner shall not be entitled to continuity of service, and that the respondent shall consider the case of the petitioner for regularization, immediately after reinstatement. The grievance of the petitioner is that though number of casual drivers, who are appointed along with him, were regularized, his case was not considered and he seeks appropriate relief, in this regard. The Corporation, on the other hand, filed W.P. No.15140 of 2096 assailing the award. 3. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that having directed reinstatement and payment of back wages, the Labour Court ought to have granted the relief of continuity of service also. He contends that the findings recorded by the Labour Court do not suffer from any infirmity or illegality, and that he is entitled for the relief of continuity of service also. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse in nature, and that it proceeded, as though no exception can be taken for an accident involving an Express Service. 4. Learned Standing Counsel for the Corporation submits that the findings recorded by the Labour Court are perverse in nature, and that it proceeded, as though no exception can be taken for an accident involving an Express Service. He further contends that the relief granted to the petitioner, be it as to the reinstatement, or for back wages, cannot be sustained, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. 5. It is a matter of record that an accident took place, when the petitioner was driving the vehicle on 13.4.1998, resulting in the death of a cyclist. Departmental enquiry was conducted and all the necessary steps were followed, before an order of removal was passed against the petitioner. The order was affirmed in appeal and review. 6. In an industrial dispute raised before a Labour Court, two aspects assume significance. The first is about the legality and correctness of the domestic enquiry, and the second is about the exercise of jurisdiction, under Section 11-A of the Act. In case, the domestic enquiry is found to be defective, the Labour Court is conferred with the power to record evidence and express its views on the charges framed against the employee. Even where the domestic enquiry is found to be correct, or where the Labour Court independently arrives at a conclusion that the charges against the employee are proved, it can still exercise jurisdiction under Section 11-A of the Act, while moulding the relief, depending on the facts and circumstances of the case. Therefore, a finding on the legality of domestic enquiry becomes essential in an adjudication by the Labour Court. 7. In the instant case, the Labour Court did not address itself to that question at all. It straight away proceeded to examine the charge against the petitioner and pronounced upon it, as though it is undertaking an enquiry by itself. This was not preceded by any finding, about, the correctness of the domestic enquiry. The whole discussion on this aspect runs as follows: "The charge is that the petitioner drove the bus in rash and negligent manner on 13.4.1998 which resulted in the death of a cyclist. EX.M-5 is enquiry report. Sri K. Koteswara Rao, Chief Inspector, A vanigadda Depot was examined during enquiry. The whole discussion on this aspect runs as follows: "The charge is that the petitioner drove the bus in rash and negligent manner on 13.4.1998 which resulted in the death of a cyclist. EX.M-5 is enquiry report. Sri K. Koteswara Rao, Chief Inspector, A vanigadda Depot was examined during enquiry. He stated that the cyclist was coming on the wrong side opposite to the bus and suddenly tried to cross the road from left to right. The driver swerved the vehicle towards right side duly applying brakes. But the bus did not stop and dashed the cyclist. The bus was Express Service. The petitioner applied brakes and in spite of that, he could not avoid the accident. The cyclist was coming in opposite direction and in wrong side and suddenly tried to cross the road and confused. Therefore, the accident took place. Since the bus was Express Service, the petitioner might have been driving the bus at considerable speed and could not stop the bus and could not avoid the accident. This is purely accident and occurred not due to negligence or rashness of the petitioner in driving the bus. I, therefore, hold that the charge against the petitioner is not proved." The approach of the Labour Court is untenable in law and contrary to the settled principles. Even on merits, the conclusions arrived at, are perverse. The reason is that it proceeded, as though the driver of an Express Service is free to cause an accident. The exercise undertaken by the Labour Court could not have been possible, unless any further material was placed before it, and the findings recorded in the domestic enquiry were set aside. 8. The Labour Court repeated its performance, in the matter of moulding the relief also. On the one hand, it awarded the back wages to the petitioner, after setting aside the order of removal, and on the other hand, it denied benefit of continuity of service. This, in turn, had resulted in an uncertain situation. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the award deserves to be set aside, and the matter can be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. Inasmuch as the petitioner was already reinstated, he shall be continued in service, in the same status, pending adjudication by the Labour Court. 9. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the award deserves to be set aside, and the matter can be remanded to the Labour Court for fresh consideration. Inasmuch as the petitioner was already reinstated, he shall be continued in service, in the same status, pending adjudication by the Labour Court. 9. For the foregoing reasons, W.P. No.15140 of 2006 is allowed, and the matter is remanded to the Labour Court, Guntur, for fresh consideration and disposal, after giving an opportunity to both the parties. W.P. No.7814 of 2006 is disposed of, directing that the entitlement of the petitioner to be regularized in service, would depend upon the outcome of the I.D., which is remanded, and in the meanwhile, the petitioner shall be continued in service, on the existing terms.