IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA WRIT PETITION NO. 168 OF 2006 SHRI HANUMAN H. GOKARNKAR AND ....Petitioners ANR., Versus THE COMMISSIONER FOR LABOUR AND 2 ....Respondents ORS., Mr. A.V. Nigalye, Advocate for the Petitioners. Mr. S. Vahidulla, Aga For Resp. 1 & 3. Coram:- A. P. LAVANDE & N. A. BRITTO, JJ. Date:- 24th April, 2006 P.C.: Heard Mr. Nigalye for the Petitioners and Mr. Vahidulla, Addl. Govt. Advocate for the Respondents No.1 and 3. 2. Having regard to the nature of the challenge in the petition, it is not necessary to hear the Respondent No.2. 3. Pursuant to the Award dated 27.05.05 passed by the Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal, Government of Goa in Application No. C-IT/14/97, the petitioner who was employed with Respondent No.2 vide application dated 27.06.05 under Section 33-C(1) of the I.D. Act to the Respondent No.1. It is the grievance of the Petitioners that the said application has not yet been decided. Mr. Vahidulla, learned Addl. Govt. Advocate upon taking instructions from the Respondent No.1, states that the application filed by the Petitioners under Section 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 shall be decided within a period of four weeks from today. The statement made on behalf of Respondent No.1 is accepted. 4. In view of the said statement, nothing survives in this petition. Accordingly the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. A. P. LAVANDE, J. N. A. BRITTO, J. sl.