case when considered from the judgment of the labour Court, it appears that he has worked between 1986 to 1992 thereafter he was removed. The removal has been held illegal by an order passed in September, 2009. Thereafter, he has been reinstated. The dispute was raised by the petitioner for the first time in the year 2007, when the reference was made to the labour Court. Between 1992 to 2007, the petitioner had infact not worked anywhere neither had he challenged his removal before any forum. Keeping in view the judgment of the Division Bench in the case of Tukaram (Supra), it would clearly reflect that the litigating period for petitioner would be from 2007. Thus, it is only from 2007 onwards, the petitioner would be deemed to be in continuous service. In the aforesaid factual back drop the total length of service so far as the petitioner is concerned, would be between May, 1986 to July, 1992 and thereafter from the year 2009 till date. As he has since been reinstated after the award of the labour Court, if we take the said two periods that is from 1986 to 1992 and 2009 till date apparently the petitioner has put in more than 10 years of service and the initial appointment of the petitioner was prior to 31.12.1997, therefore, the respondent authorities would have to accordingly consider the case of the petitioner and pass a fresh order, so far as his claim for regularization is concerned. Keeping in view the circular dated 05.03.2008. The writ petition accordingly stands disposed off. Let an order be passed by the respondent authorities within a period of 90 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. Sd/-
