ORDER : (Harinath N., J.) Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.2. 2. The petitioner was absent from duty from 21.05.1998 to 20.09.1998 and the same was treated as unauthorized absence. An enquiry was conducted and the petitioner was given the punishment of removal from service. 3. Aggrieved by the punishment, the petitioner filed an appeal and review before the competent authority of the respondent No.2. Both the appellate and review authorities had confirmed the punishment imposed on the petitioner. Thereafter, the petitioner filed I.D.No.42 of 2003 before the Labour Court, Guntur. The Labour Court has partly allowed the case of the petitioner and directed the respondent to reinstate the petitioner into service without back wages and without continuity of service. The Labour Court order also held that the petitioner would not be entitled to any monetary benefit from the date of removal until the date of the order of the Tribunal. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the reinstatement of the petitioner without continuity of service would imply that the petitioner would be appointed afresh. It is further stated that the petitioner joined the respondent No.2-Corporation as a Driver on 06.07.1974 and disciplinary proceedings were initiated against the petitioner for the unauthorized absence in the year 1998. The service rendered by the petitioner from the year, 1974 to 1998 i.e., 24 years of service rendered by the petitioner in the respondent No.2-Corporation would have to be foregone by virtue of the order of the Tribunal. 5. The learned Standing counsel for the respondent No.2- Corporation submits that several opportunities were given to the petitioner to correct his behavior and that it was not the first instance of unauthorized absence of the petitioner. It is also submitted that the disciplinary authority has passed well reasoned order and the order was upheld by the appellate and the revisional authorities. As such, prays for dismissal of the writ petition. 6. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for both the parties and also perusing the Award passed by the Labour Court, it is evident that reinstatement of the petitioner into service without continuity of service would squarely disentitle the petitioner of his 24 years of service, which is not only illegal but also illogical and against the principles of natural justice. 7. 7. It is also evident that, the Labour Court has not given any finding as to why there was a reason for denying the continuity of service for the petitioner. 8. Considering the submissions, this Court is inclined to modify the Award to the extent of extending the service benefits to the petitioner. The respondent No.2 is directed to extend all the service benefits of the petitioner and disburse the said benefits to the petitioner within a period of six (06) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. Accordingly, this writ petition is partly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel, pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed.