1 S.B.Civil Writ Petition No.2742/05 Fou Lal vs. The State of Raj. & ors. Date of order: 12.10.2009. HON'BLE MR. PRAKASH TATIA, J. Mr. Narpat Singh for the petitioner. Mr. Yash Pal Khileri for the respondents. ... Heard learned counsel for the parties. The award passed in favour of the petitioner on 21.2.2004 was not implemented, therefore, the petitioner approached this Court by filing this writ petition. It appears that the conduct of the respondents was not fair to the petitioner and, therefore, as back as on 12.5.2006, it has been observed by this Court that there is no valid reason available to the respondents for not complying with the award dated 21.2.2004 and this Court directed the respondent no.2-CMHO to remain present in Court on 16.5.2006. Then on 16.5.2006, this Court again observed that it was obligatory on employer to pay the minimum wages to the employee. Then on 19.5.2006, this Court further directed respondents to comply with the award dated 21.2.2004 and the officer-in-charge was directed to remain present in Court. These facts were taken note again by this Court in the order dated 20.7.2007 and then a detail order was passed on 10.8.007 to see the compliance of the award. The petitioner's 2 contention was that whenever this Court issued directions, then only the petitioner was paid salary and he was harassed even during pendency of the writ petition. Be it as it may be. Now the respondents have submitted detail affidavit today on 12.10.2009 and in para 3, it has been stated clearly that the respondents have fully complied with the award as well as making payment monthly to the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner is that though he has been re- instated and has been paid the back wages as awarded by the labour court and now has been paid salary also month wise, however, with delay, but the respondents have not passed any order declaring the continuity of service of the petitioner. The apprehension of the petitioner that his services has not been treated as continuous inspite of the award dated 21.2.2004, cannot be accepted. When the respondents have already been directed by this Court to comply with the directions given in the award and the respondents have clearly admitted that they have complied with the award, therefore, there is no need to pass any further order by this Court because of the reason that this Court has already taken note of the fact from the reply that the petitioner's service has been treated as continuous service in terms of the award and, therefore, though the conduct of the respondents was 3 not fair, yet since all the reliefs have been granted to the petitioner including continuation of service in terms of the award, nothing survives in the writ petition. Hence, the writ petition of the petitioner is dismissed. ( PRAKASH TATIA),J. mlt.