IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THURSDAY, THE TWENTY FIFTH DAY OF SEPTEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1042 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 21/04/2008 in WP NO : 7814 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: 1 Vallabhaneni Ramu, s/o Venkateswarlu, r/o Chandarlapadu (Post & Mandal) Krishna District. 2 The Labour Court, Guntur rep., by its Presiding Officer. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Avanigadda Depot, Krishna District. 2 The Divisional Manager, APSRTC, Vijayawada. 3 The Labour Court, Guntur Rep by its Presiding Officer .....RESPONDENTS Counsel for the Appellants :MR.M.PITCHAIAH Counsel for the Respondents : C.PRAKASH REDDY(SC FOR APSRTC) The Court made the following : HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE And HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 1042 of 2008 JUDGMENT : (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R.Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 21st April 2008 passed by the learned single Judge in writ petition No.15140 of 2006, this appeal has been filed. The appellant was a Driver employed by the respondent-Corporation, who had caused an accident, which caused death of a cyclist. His services were terminated after holding an inquiry and being aggrieved by the order of punishment, he had approached the Labour Court. The Labour Court, by an award dated 7th June 2005, set aside the order of removal, directing payment of back-wages, but without continuity of service. The said award was challenged in the aforesaid writ petition by the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation. The petition has been allowed and the case has been remanded to the Labour Court, as the learned single Judge found that the Labour Court had not discussed the evidence properly. We have heard the learned advocate appearing for the appellant-Driver. It has been submitted by him that the evidence adduced before the Labour Court had been duly considered by it, and according to him, the award passed by the Labour Court is just and proper, and, therefore, it is not necessary to remand the matter. We are not in agreement with the submissions made by the learned advocate appearing for the appellant for the reason that we too have found that the Labour Court did not evaluate the evidence in proper perspective. The Labour Court did not give reasons for awarding back-wages. Looking to the facts of the case, we are in agreement with the reasons recorded by the learned single Judge, and, therefore, we dismiss the appeal. We, however, clarify that the appellant shall continue in service as directed by the learned single Judge, subject to ﬁnal award. We are sure that the Labour Court will give due priority to the case and shall try to decide it as expeditiously as possible. It is further clariﬁed that the amount of back-wages, which has already been withdrawn by the appellant, need not be recovered from him during the pendency of the proceedings, and the respondents shall abide by the ﬁnal order which may be passed by the Labour Court with regard to payment of back-wages. Appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. _________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 25th September 2008 ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J ajr