S. R. NAYAK, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner joined the service of the a. P. S. R. T. C. as Driver on 3/02/1984. While serving as Driver, the third respondent-disciplinary authority conducted disciplinary enquiry against the petitioner on the alleged misconduct in terms of a. P. S. R. T. C. C. C. A. Regulations and he was found to be guilty of the charges levelled against him. On that count, the petitioner was removed from service as a disciplinary measure with effect from 13/05/1988. The petitioner instituted I. D. No. 468 of 1990 in the Labour Court, Godavarikhani. The labour Court passed award on 14/08/1991, directing reinstatement of the petitioner into service with nominal continuity of service without any attendant benefits and denied back wages. The award passed by the Labour Court has become final. As directed by the Labour Court, the petitioner was reinstated into service on 25/01/1992. In the meanwhile,before the petitioner was removed from service as a disciplinary measure on 13/05/1988, the second respondent had issued proceeding dated 21/12/1987, regularising the services of the petitioner and similarly circumstanced some other drivers with effect from 1/07/1987. However, after reinstatement of the petitioner into service in pursuance of the award passed by the Labour court, the petitioner s services were regularised with effect from 1/07/1993 by the proceeding of the second respondent dated 26/04/1994. The petitioner being aggrieved by the said action preferred an appeal to the first respondent and the first respondent dismissed the appeal by his order dated 22/06/1999. Hence, this writ petition assailing the actions of the first and the second respondents in regularising the services of the petitioner only with effect from 1/07/1993 and not with effect from 1/07/1987. ( 2 ) HEARD the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel for A. P. S. R. T. C. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that since the labour Court has awardedcontinuityofservice to the petitioner, the period during which the petitioner was kept out of employment should be taken into account and if it is so taken, the impugned action in regularising the services of the petitioner only with effect from 1/07/1993 is ex facie illegal and unjustified. On the other hand, the learned Standing Counsel for a. P. S. R. T. C. would maintain that since the labour Court has awarded "nominal continuity of service without any attendant benefits", the petitioner is not entitled to count the period during which he was out of employment by force of disciplinary proceedings initiated against him. ( 3 ) I do not find any merit in the contention raised by the Corporation and reiterated by the learned Standing Counsel. Should it be noted that even before the petitioner was removed from service as a disciplinary measure on 13/05/1988, the petitioner s services were regularised with effect from 1/07/1987. That regularisation order even to-day holds good. It is nobody s case that the order made by the second respondent dated 21/12/1987, regularising the services of the petitioner and others with effect from 1/07/1987, was subsequently modified, annulled or repealed either by the second respondent or any superior authority in the administrative echelon of the corporation. Once the Labour Court directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service in the cadre of Driver, the petitioner is entitled to be reinstated into the post with all attendant benefits which he had acquired as on the date of his removal as a disciplinary measure with effect from 13/05/1988. On this count itself the petitioner is entitled to seek regularisation with effect from 1/07/1987. Secondly, the learned Presiding Officer of the Labour Court while denying back wages has granted continuity of service without any attendant benefits. The purport of this direction is that the petitioner should be deemed to have been in service between 13/05/1988 and 25/01/1992 for all practical purposes, except for any benefit or advantage, pecuniary or otherwise for the period during which he was out of employment. This Court has had an occasion to consider the legal consequences that flow from the direction of the Labour Court granting continuity of service to the workman while passing award, in relation to fixation of the wage of the reinstated workman, in T. Narayana v. APSRTC, 1998 (4) ALT 640 and held that the workman should be deemed to have been in service during the out of employment period and the management while fixing the wage of the reinstated employee should take into account the periodical increments that would have been earned by the workman had he been in service during the out of employment period. It is not that the petitioner is seeking any pecuniary or other benefit flowing from grant of continuity of service for the period between 13/05/1988 and 25/01/1992. If the contention of the learned Standing counsel for the corporation, as noted above, is accepted the relief of grant of continuity of service would lose all substance and significance and the workman would not be entitled to any conceivable benefit or advantage out of that relief. Such an interpretation cannot be placed on the language employed by the Learned presiding Officer of the Labour Court when he says that the respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service with nominal continuity of service . ( 4 ) IN the result, the writ petition is allowed. And it is declared that the services of the petitioner in the post of Driver have to be regularised with effect from 1/07/1987. The respondents are directed to extend all consequential benefits, pecuniary or otherwise, that flow from such regularisation to the petitioner. This direction shall be carried out within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. No costs.