1 W.P.No.1804.99 Bsb IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 1804 OF 1999 M/s.Rajoo Prints Ltd. ... Petitioner v/s 1. Shri N.Gopinath Nair & ors. ... Respondents Mr.K.S.Bapat for the petitioner. None present for the respondents. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 26TH OCTOBER, 2010 P.C.: 1. The petition has been filed against the orders dated 28.8.1995 passed by the Labour Court and the order dated 15.1.1998 passed by the Industrial Court in the revision application. Both the Courts below have held that the petitioner has committed an unfair labour practice under Item 1(b),(d) and (f) of Schedule IV of the M.R.T.U. & P.U.L.P. Act, 1971. The petitioner has been directed to reinstate the workman with continuity of service and full back wages with effect from 6.7.1982. 2 W.P.No.1804.99 2. When the petition was admitted, a statement of the petitioner that it had no objection to reinstate the workman was recorded by this Court. A stay was granted to the recovery of the back wages. 3. According to Mr.Bapat appearing for the petitioner, the respondent reported for duty, worked for a few days and then abandoned his service. Mr.Bapat also points out that after the petition was admitted the petitioner Company has been closed for many years. 4. The respondent though served, is not represented by any advocate. It appears that he is not interested in proceeding with the petition. In these circumstances, the hearing of the petition is not necessary as it will only be an exercise in futility. 5. The petition is therefore disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to revive the petition in case the respondent seeks to execute the impugned order. 6. Writ petition disposed of accordingly. ..... 3 W.P.No.1804.99 4 W.P.No.1804.99