1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR. WRIT PETITION NO. 2883 OF 2000 (Plantation Officer and another .v. Damodhar Janraoji Kale and another) Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's Orders and Registrar's orders. Smt. S.S. Wandile, AGP for the petitioners. Shri S.T. Harkare, Advocate for the respondent No.1. CORAM : R.V. MORE, J. 17TH JANUARY, 2008. Heard the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respective parties. The respondent No.2 is a formal party. The labour Court by the judgment and order dated 16.04.1999 reinstated the respondent No.1 with continuity of service and 25 per cent of the back wages. The petitioners being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order, preferred the Revision (ULP) No. 100/1999 before the Industrial Court at Amravati and during the pendency of this revision, the petitioners filed an application at Exh.2 for stay to the order passed by the labour Court. The learned Member of the Industrial Court, by his order dated 17.11.1999, was pleased to stay the labour Court's order in so far as it relates to back wages. However, labour Court's order 2 regarding reinstatement was refused to be stayed. The petitioners being aggrieved, filed this petition impugning the aforesaid order of the learned Industrial Court. This Court, by an order dated 18.06.2001, admitted the petition since prior to the passing of this order, the respondent No.1 was already reinstated. The Court also passed an order that joining of duties by the respondent No.1 will not give any right to him to claim the said post as he has joined the duties pursuant to the order of the labour Court. The learned Counsel appearing for the parties submit that the petitioners' revision mentioned above is still pending before the learned Industrial Court, Amravati. As stated above, the respondent No.1 is already reinstated and the Industrial Court stayed the labour Court's order in so far as it relates to back wages. In this view of the matter, I am of the opinion that no purpose would be served by keeping this writ petition pending in this Court. In the backdrop of the above facts and circumstances, I dispose of the petition by passing the following order. (i) The writ petition is disposed of with no order as to costs. (ii) The order dated 18.06.2001 of this Court 3 passed at the time of admission of the writ petition to the effect that joining of the duties of the respondent No. 1 will not give any right to him to claim the said post shall remain operative during the pendency and final decision of the petitioners' revision being Revision (ULP) No.100/1999. (iii) The learned Member of the Industrial Court, Amravati is directed to hear and dispose of the petitioners' revision as expeditiously as possible and in any way within a period of six months from the date of receipt of this order. CIVIL APPLICATION NO.9499 OF 2007 Since writ petition is disposed of today, the Civil Application No.9499/2007 does not survive and the same is also disposed of as such. JUDGE *rrg.