1. A short question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether the petitioners are entitled for regularization of their services in the Respondent-APSRTC or not.

2. It appears, petitioners four in number, were appointed as Cleaners/Sweepers in the Respondent-Corporation and were initially attached to Gannavaram Depot in May 1989 and worked upto 30.6.1992. However, with effect from 1.7.1992, their services were terminated. Aggrieved by the same, they have filed I.D.No.280 of 1992 and batch before the Labour Court, Guntur under Section 2-A(2) of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking a direction to the Respondent Corporation to reinstate them into service with continuity of service, back wages and attendant benefits. The Labour Court, Guntur, by a common award dated 16.7.1997 directed the Respondent-Management to reinstate the petitioners into service with continuity of service, back wages and all attendant benefits. Aggrieved thereby, respondent-management filed Writ Petition Nos.32954 of 1997 and batch before this Court, however, this Court by order dated 1.4.2003 dismissed the said writ petitions. Questioning the same, management carried the matter in appeal being Writ Appeal No.131 of 2004 before this Court and the Division Bench also dismissed the Writ Appeal on 17.6.2004 while upholding the order of the learned single Judge. Thus, the order made in I.D.No.280 of 1992 and batch dated 16.7.1997 has attained finality. However, when the petitioners were not reinstated into service, they had filed E.Ps. before the Labour Court and ultimately, they were reinstated into service in November, 2004 and working as such since then.

3. The grievance of the petitioners in these writ petitions is that though they were appointed in November, 1989 and the Labour Court passed award in their favour on 16.7.1997 directing the respondents to reinstate them into service with continuity of service, back wages etc., which attained finality in Writ Appeal before this Court and having reinstated into service with effect from November 2004, their services are not regularized till date. In view of award passed in I.D.No.280 of 1992 and batch dated 16.7.1997 and in view of pendency of Writ Petitions and Writ Appeal and management obtained conditional order and complied with the provisions of Section 17-B of I.D. Act and after disposal of Writ Appeal, they were reinstated into service with effect from November, 2004, it must be deemed that they have been in continuous service of the respondent-management since 1989. Therefore, they have put in 21 years of long and continuous service and as such, they are entitled for regularization of their services and shall be put on regular timescale on par with their juniors.

4. The learned counsel for petitioner contended that the scheme of Industrial Disputes Act is to discourage adhocism, temporary and intermittent engaging of workers and the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation is a statutory organization and is supposed to be a model employer in dealing with service conditions of its employees. In support of his case, the learned counsel relied upon the decisions in THE MANAGEMENT OF ANDHRA SCIENTIFIC CO. MASULIPATNAM v. THE PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT AND ANOTHER [1], A.P.S.R.T.C. v. ESWARA DASS AND OTHERS [2], E.P. ROYAPPA v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU AND ANR. [3] and STATE OF KARNATAKA AND ORS. v. L.KESAR [4].

5. The learned counsel also drawn attention of the Court to Section 19 of Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950, Schedule-V read with Section 25-T of I.D. Act and submitted that not regularizing the services of petitioners amounts to unfair labour practice on the part of the management.

Section 19 of R.T.C. Act reads as under:

“Powers of Corporation

(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, a Corporation shall have power-

(c) to provide for its employees suitable conditions of service including fair wages, establishment of provident fund, living accommo