The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 1675 of 2002 O r d e r: Heard the learned standing counsel for the petitioner; Sri B.Sudhakar Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent and the learned Government Pleader for Labour for the second respondent. 2. The concerned Depot Manager of APSRTC is the petitioner herein. He filed this writ petition questioning the Award dated:8.5.2001 passed by the Labour Court, Godavarikhani in I.D.No. 72 of 1998, by which it directed that the first respondent herein be reinstated into service with all consequential benefits. 3. The main plea of the first respondent before the Labour Court was that she worked as a regular employee in the APSRTC organization, including its hospital at Mancherial and that her services were illegally terminated on 4.5.1998. Elaborating on this aspect, she stated that she has been working as a sweeper in the Corporation’s Dispensary from 14.7.1993 onwards. Her further plea is that she has been directly employed by the corporation on daily wage basis and therefore the termination of her services is illegal and she ought to be reinstated into service and also regularized. 4. On the other hand, the stand of the Corporation before the Labour Court is that earlier it employed one Kumara Swamy, as sweeper on contract basis, the first respondent worked under him and later on when Kumara Swamy gave up the contract, it employed the first respondent on contract basis and she was never a regular employee of the Corporation nor did the Corporation employ her directly on daily wage basis, as its employee. Having taken that plea the corporation says that the first respondent having been employed only on contract basis cannot claim the benefits of regularization or reinstatement, as she has been removed from service after expiry of contract period and therefore her claim is not tenable. 5. The Labour Court in the impugned award dated:8.5.2001 discussed the evidence let in by both sides elaborately. It, however, failed to consider the question whether the first respondent was employed on contract basis or on regular basis as an employee of the Corporation. It may be noted that MW-1 by name, Kishosre Babu spoke about the case of the corporation on the above lines. WW-2, V. Kumara Swamy admitted that he had earlier worked as a sweeper on contract basis and that the first respondent worked under him. The Labour Court simply discussed the evidence, but failed to give a finding regarding master and servant relationship between the corporation and the first respondent. It may also be noted that consequences of being employed as a contract employee or under contractor will be different from the consequences of employing a person directly by the corporation. The Labour Court did not keep in view this distinction and it did not give a finding relating to master and servant relationship between the parties. Instead, it straightaway concluded that the evidence on record discloses that the first respondent was terminated on 3.5.1998 and therefore she is entitled to be reinstated. This approach of the Labour Court, in my opinion, cannot be said to be correct. It can be said that the Labour Court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested in it in deciding the matter properly. It is brought to my notice by Sri P. Sridhar Reddy that at the time when the writ petition was admitted an absolute stay of the Labour Court’s award was granted and that it is still in force. 6. In the above circumstances, the impugned award is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Labour Court with a direction to decide the matter afresh, giving specific findings on the pleas taken by both sides and resolve the dispute. The Labour Court shall dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. The writ petition is accordingly allowed in the above terms. There shall be no order as to costs. ______________________ N. RAVI SHANKAR, J. August 3, 2011. *BVS IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD Wednesday, August 03, 2011. Present: The Hon’ble Sri Justice N. Ravi Shankar W.P.No. 1675 of 2002 Between: The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Adilabad ..Petitioner and Bheema Laxmi and another …Respondents