THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.645 of 2003 ORAL ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking a Mandamus declaring the action of the respondents in not regularizing the services of the petitioner and not fixing the pay on par with his colleague employee namely B.Somla, E.361257, Driver of the same Depot as arbitrary, illegal and consequently direct the respondents to regularize the services of the petitioner on par with the said Somla and fix the pay by paying arrears subsequent to reinstatement forthwith. It appears, petitioner was appointed as Driver in the Respondent- Corporation along with one Somla. It appears, he was removed from service vide order dated 13.3.1995 on the allegation that he involved in an accident. Aggrieved thereby, petitioner filed I.D.No.60 of 1999 before the Labour Court, Ananthapur and the Labour Court vide its award dated 27.2.2002 passed the following order: “In the result, an award is passed setting aside the removal order. The respondent is directed to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages. The respondent is further directed to defer 3 annual increments with cumulative effect after reinstatement”. Now the grievance of the petitioner is that since the Labour Court passed the said award ordering reinstatement, it must be deemed that reinstatement with continuity of service, therefore if continuity of service is taken into consideration, he is entitled to be regularized on par with his colleague Somla, who was appointed along with petitioner. Whereas the learned counsel for respondents submitted that as per the award, the services of the petitioner were regularized and insofar as continuity of service is concerned, petitioner is not entitled to the benefit of continuity of service since the Labour Court has not made it clear in this regard. Generally speaking, once the reinstatement order is passed, petitioner is entitled for continuity of service, but this being an award passed by the Labour Court in exercise of the powers conferred under Section 11-A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and it has to be construed strictly, this Court is not inclined to interfere with such an award passed by the Labour Court. Be that as it may, the learned counsel for respondents states that during the pendency of writ petition, the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 1.1.2005, therefore nothing survives in the writ petition for further adjudication. Whereas the learned counsel for petitioner states that whether the services of the petitioner were regularized with effect from 1.1.2005 or thereafter, petitioner is entitled for regularization on par with his colleague Somla. Under those circumstances, the writ petition is disposed of directing the petitioner to file a detailed representation before the authority concerned seeking regularization of his service on par with his colleague Somla. On filing such representation, the respondents are at liberty to consider the same and pass appropriate orders, as per law, within a period of eight (8) weeks thereafter. No order as to costs. ______________ C.V.RAMULU, J Date: 8.2.2011 DA THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.645 of 2003 8.2.2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.RAMULU W.P.No.645 of 2003 Date: 8th February, 2011 Between: M.Hatiya, E.361529, Driver. .. Petitioner And The APSRTC, rep. by its Managing Director, Musheerabad, Hyderabad and others. .. Respondents