Judgment : This Writ Petition is filed for a mandamus to set-aside award dated 27-12-2000 in I.D.No.265/1999 on the file of respondent No.1-Labour Court, Anantapur. The petitioner is the Depot Manager of the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation, Kuppam Depot, Chittoor District. Respondent No.2 has raised the above mentioned industrial dispute under Section 2-A(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short "the Act") questioning his purported termination of services by the petitioner. Respondent No.2 averred in the claim petition that he was appointed as a casual worker in the petitioner-Corporation; that his services were utilized for over-stamping on the tickets and ticket-cutting; that the Management of the petitioner-Corporation has issued appreciation letters to him for his work and that he was being paid Rs.6/-and Rs.10/-per day depending upon the work. Respondent No.2 further averred that he was a workman within the definition of Section 2(s) of the Act; that his services were utilized from August 1995 to February 1999 continuously and that his services were terminated without any notice. The petitioner has contested the claim of respondent No.2 by pleading that the latter was never engaged as a casual worker and that he was never entrusted with the work of stamping and ticket-cutting. The petitioner also denied the engagement of the services of respondent No.2 from August 1995 to February 1999 and payment of any wages to him. The petitioner has also denied the authenticity of the purported letter of the Depot Clerk produced by respondent No.2 along with the claim statement pleading that the same is invalid as he has no authority to issue such letters. No evidence was adduced by either party. Respondent No.1-Labour Court, has framed the following Points: 1. Whether the claim of the petitioner for reinstatement is justified or not? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for reinstatement into service with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits? 3. To what relief the petitioner is entitled for? Respondent No.1 allowed the I.D. by a cryptic and laconic award. It has stated in its material portion of the award as hereunder: “Rejoinder is filed by the Regional Manager, APSRTC, Anantapur. Domestic enquiry report is not filed and Memo is filed as no enquiry is conducted. Respondent/Depot Manager has failed to file Rejoinder in this case. Costs not paid. Welfare Stamp is not affixed. Vakalat of the respondent is not filed. Domestic enquiry report is not filed and Memo is filed as no enquiry is conducted. Respondent/Depot Manager has failed to file Rejoinder in this case. Costs not paid. Welfare Stamp is not affixed. Vakalat of the respondent is not filed. Hence, I.D. is allowed without costs.” It is indeed unfortunate that the Labour Court presided over by a District Judge could pass an order such as this. When the petitioner-Corporation has denied the employer-employee relationship between it and respondent No.2, the question of the former having to file the domestic enquiry report does not arise. Therefore, the petitioner rightly filed a Memo reporting that domestic enquiry was not held. Having taken note of the fact that rejoinder is filed by the Regional Manager, Anantapur of the petitioner-Corporation, the Labour Court fell in serious error in observing that the petitioner has failed to file rejoinder in the case. The further reasons that costs were not paid, welfare stamp is not affixed and vakalat of the petitioner is not filed, can never be a basis for allowing the claim of respondent No.2. The approach of the Labour Court is wholly perfunctory and perverse, to say the least. Such orders are not expected from Judicial Officers at whatever level, much less, from an officer of the rank of the District Judge. As the award of the Labour Court defies logic and rationale, besides being bereft of any acceptable reasons, the same is set-aside. The Writ Petition is accordingly allowed.