IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2895 OF 2002 Rashtriya Kamgar Sanghatana and Anr...Petitioners Vs. G.K.W.Ltd. Sankey Electrical Stamping Divn.Mumbai ..Respondents Mr.R.D.Bhat for the petitioners Mr.C.U.Singh a/w Ms.Geetanjali Prabhu and Ms.Najma Shaikh i/b Vigil Juris for the respondent nos.1 to 3 CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J CORAM : S.U.KAMDAR, J DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2006 DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2006 DATED : 13TH APRIL, 2006 P.C.: 1. The learned counsel for the petitioners has tendered a statement duly signed by the union as well as the advocate in which it has been stated that the impugned award has become infructuous and accordingly, the petition be disposed of. The learned counsel for the respondents does not accept that the said award has been infructuous. In my opinion, in view of the statement by the petitioners themselves that the impugned award is infructuous the question of going into the validity or otherwise of the said award does not arise. Petition is accordingly dismissed as infructuous. 2. After the order is passed in the morning session, Mr.Bhat mentions the matter at 3 p.m. and submits that he may be permitted to withdraw his statement which he has given in writing in the morning because he did not understand the implication thereof. In my opinion, once I have already passed a final order in the writ petition, my jurisdiction has ceased and I cannot pass any order in the said writ petition. However, I sought from Mr.Singh whether his client is giving the consent to withdraw the statement and he states that his instructions are not to give any such consent. In that view of the matter, no further orders are possible on the oral application made by Mr.Bhat. Application is rejected.