1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.1274 OF 2002 Hindustan Lever Ltd., though its Branch Manager, Mumbai. Vs. Member, Industrial Court, Amravati and another. ........................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................... Shri H.V.Thakur, Counsel for the Petitioner. S/Shri S.G.Loney & R.J.Mirza, Counsels for the R-2. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 09th JUNE, 2011. The respondent no.2 in this petition was dismissed from the employment and he had preferred Complaint (ULP) No.13 of 1977, which was dismissed by the Labour Court, Akola, by its Judgment and Order dated 13.9.1978. The respondent no.2 employee preferred Revision (ULP) No.11 of 1983. It has been allowed (by its Judgment and Order dated 21.1.2002), by the Industrial Court, Amravati. By this impugned Judgment and Order, the respondent no.2 is directed to be reinstated in service with 50% of .....2/- 2 back wages from the date of dismissal till the date of reinstatement or till the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier. On 11.12.2002, rule was issued in this matter and interim relief granted as prayer clause (b), staying the effect and operation of the impugned Judgment and Order, was continued. Shri S.G.Loney, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has filed Pursis dated 1.12.2009 vide Stamp No.12303 of 2009 stating therein as under-- “On an instructions from the son of Respondent No.2 it is learnt that the Respondent No.2 is dead. Hence, the undersigned may be discharged.” Shri H.V.Thakur, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the Counsel appearing for the respondent no.2 has claimed discharge from the proceeding on the ground, that the respondent no.2 has died. Although, a Pursis shows that the statement is made on the instructions of the son of the respondent no.2, the date of death of the .....3/- 3 respondent no.2 has not been stated. The names of legal heirs of the respondent no.2 have also not been stated. The copy of the Certificate of Death has also not been placed on record. Faced with this predicament, Shri H.V.Thakur, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that he may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action in the event if any execution proceedings or steps are taken up to execute the Judgment and Order passed by the Industrial Court. The request appears to be just and proper. In view of above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file the same as and when any execution proceeding are filed or if any other steps are taken to implement to execute and implement the Judgment and Order dated 21.1.2002 passed by the Industrial Court, Amravati in Revision (ULP) No.11 of 1983. No order as to costs. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-