( 1 ) THE writ petition was heard finally with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties.

( 2 ) THE petitioner while serving as Conductor in the establishment of theapsrtc was removed from service with effect from 17-11-1986 as a disciplinary measure. The action of the disciplinary authority was called in question by the petitioner by instituting I. D. No. 105/92 before the Labour court -II, Hyderabad. The Labour Court allowed the I. D. in part and directed reinstatement of the petitioner into service with continuity of service while denying back-wages. It is stated that the petitioner was out of employment between 17-11-1986 and some date in the month of October, 1993. The grievance of the petitioner in this writ petition is that after the petitioner was reinstated into service by virtue of the award passed by the Labour Court, in fixing his wage, the management has not taken into account the continuity of service for the period between 17-11-1986 and the date of reinstatement. This fact alleged by the petitioner is not denied by the management of the corporation. It is needless to state that though under the award passed by the Labour Court, the petitioner