:1: IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1044 OF 2008 Gadhinglaj Taluka Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited ..Petitioner Vs. 1. Sunil Yeshwant Desai and ors. ..Respondents Mr. S.S. Patwardhan for petitioner. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. CORAM: B.H. MARLAPALLE, J. Date : February 15, 2008. Date : February 15, 2008. Date : February 15, 2008. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard Mr. Patwardhan the learned counsel for the petitioner. The challenge in this petition is to the interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court on 19/3/2003 below Exh.U-2 filed in Complaint (ULP) No. 17 of 2001 and by the said order the respondent nos.1 and 2 were directed to be reinstated during the pendency of the complaint. This order was challenged before the Industrial Court in Revision Application (ULP) No. 29 of 2003 and the revision has been disposed off with a direction to the Labour Court to decide the complaint on its own merits along with the application for disbursement of the amount deposited by the Karkhana in the Labour Court. :2: 2. The Industrial Court has taken into consideration the subsequent developments after the impugned order dated 19/3/2003 was passed by the Labour Court. There is no dispute that the Karkhana had reinstated the respondents-workmen after the impugned order was passed and the workmen have been retrenched by the order dated 28/10/2006 and the said retrenchment order has been challenged by filing a separate complaint before the Labour Court. 3. The Industrial Court, therefore, was right in observing that the challenge to the interlocutory order passed by the Labour Court on 19/3/2003 did not survive on account of the subsequent retrenchment of the respondents-workmen and, therefore, there is no case to cause interference in the said order passed below Exh.U-2. 4. Hence, the petition is rejected as infructuous. :3: (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.) (B.H. Marlapalle,J.)