IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL WRIT PETITION No. 1224 of 2008 (S/S) Shyam Lal and others. ….Petitioners. Versus Union of India and another. …Respondents Present: Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel (Central Government) for the respondents. Hon’ble Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. (Oral) Heard Mr. D.S. Mehta, Advocate holding brief of Mr. N.K. Papnoi, Advocate for the petitioners and Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Standing Counsel (Central Government) for the respondents. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought the following relief: “I. Issue a writ order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondent no. 1 and 2 to make reference in the cases of petitioners in view of the Hon’ble Court’s direction appropriate labour court taking a decision on the representation of the petitioner positively within the time as prescribed by this Hon’b le Court. II. Issue any other order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case. III. Award cost of the petition in favour of the petitioner.” Learned counsel for the petitioners has made a statement at the bar that the appropriate authority has 2 refused to refer the matter to the Labour Court and therefore the writ petition has become infructuous. In view of the above statement, the instant writ petition is therefore dismissed as having become infructuous. No order as to costs. (Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.) 06.06.2011 Rathour