: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.494 OF 1998 Solapur Zilla Dekhrekh Sahakari Sanstha Mydt., Solapur .. Petitioners V/s. State of Maharashtra & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. Dinesh W. Bhosale for the Petitioners. Mr. K.S. Bapat for Respondent No.8. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED : 29 TH JUNE, 2010. P.C.: 1. The petitioner has impugned the order of the Industrial Court, Solapur, dated 10th October, 1997, passed in Complaint (ULP) No.44 of 1990, by which the Complaint filed by the respondents was allowed. 2. This Court has passed the following operative order dated 16th April, 1998, after the Writ Petition was admitted :- “Heard both sides. During the pendency of this Petition, the directions given by the impugned order dated 10-10-1997 to treat : 2 : Respondent No.8 to be in continuous service and releasing annual increments and other relevant benefits is concerned, there shall be no say. The learned Advocate for the Petitioner states that the annual increments shall be released within 3 months. The statement is accepted. However, direction given to pay the difference between the pay which would have been received by the Respondent No.8 if not suspended and the subsistence allowance paid is stayed. It is needless to say that this is subject to the decision in the Writ Petition.” 3. An additional affidavit has been filed on behalf of the petitioners by Mr. Balbhim Vaijinath Chavan, the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioners, in which he has stated thus :- “2.I say that pursuant to the interim order passed in the Writ Petition No. 494/1998 passed by this Hon’ble Court, the petitioner has complied the said order as such respondent No.8 Mr. Kudri has allowed to join in service in continuity of the service and differences also paid to him. As per the impugned order passed by the Industrial Court in Complaint No. 44/1990, though the orders of both courts have been complied with by the petitioner, the respondent No.8 has filed Complaint vide No.C.C.(U.L.P.) No.19/99 under Section 48(F) of the MRTU and PULP Act, 1971.” : 3 : 4. In view of this statement made by the Chief Executive Officer of the petitioners, this Writ Petition has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.