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. 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 its