( 1 ) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY, BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 1190 OF 1991 Prabhakar Raosaheb Patil and others. PETITIONERS VERSUS The Executive Engineer, Jaikwadi Project Stage-1, Construction Division No.1, Paithan and another. RESPONDENTS ..... Mr. Pradeep Shahane, advocate for the petitioners. ..... [CORAM : V.R. KINGAONKAR, J.] [DATE : 8th February, 2010] PER COURT : 1. Heard counsel. 2. The petitioners are workmen who were allegedly retrenched without permission of the competent authority. They submitted that the retrenchment was illegal in view of section 33 (1A) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The Industrial Court, however, held that such permission was not necessary because it did not amount to change in conditions of the service. ( 2 ) 3. In the meanwhile, the petitioners were directed to approach the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal when they filed another writ petition which was transferred to Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. Mr. Shahane states that said transferred matter is decided by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal and, therefore, the petitioners have been reinstated/absorbed as per the directions of the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal. 4. The only academic question that now survives is as to whether the retrenchment without proper sanction of the competent authority would amount to change in the service conditions. It is well settled that mere academic questions should not be decided by the writ Court, once it is found that the main relief is already granted or would not survive. In this view of the matter, the petition is dismissed. No costs. [ V.R. KINGAONKAR ] JUDGE NPJ/wp1190-91