CIVIL MISC. NO.12946 of 2010 in/and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9757 of 1991 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CIVIL MISC. NO.12946 of 2010 in/and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9757 of 1991 DATE OF DECISION: NOVEMBER 12 , 2010 Pepsu Road Transport Corporation, Patiala .....Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH. PRESENT: Mr. Raman Mahajan, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Shikha Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner-Corporation has filed this writ petition to challenge the award dated 24.7.1990. No one had appeared on behalf of the parties when the writ petition was taken up for hearing on 9.9.2010. This Court found that the reference has been decided in unsatisfactory manner and accordingly, set aside the award. The case was also not remanded back after considering the fact that the same was being decided at belated stage and it was assumed that workman may not be interested in getting the appointment now. CIVIL MISC. NO.12946 of 2010 in/and CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9757 of 1991 -2- Thereafter, Civil Misc. No.12946 of 2010 has been filed on behalf of applicant/respondent No.2 for reviewing of the said order while pointing out that during the pendency of the writ petition the Management had reinstated the workman on 4.2.1991. It was also pointed out that the workman has since continued to be employed with the Management and rather the writ petition would have become infructuous. In view of the above factual position, notice of the said application was issued to the counsel for the petitioner. Mr. Raman Mahajan has put in appearance. The fact that workman had been reinstated by taking back into service, is not disputed. That being the position, it would not be fair to sustain the order passed by this Court while disposing of the writ petition. In view of the changed position, which was not brought to the notice of the Court while deciding the case, the prayer for reviewing the order dated 9.9.2010 is made out. The application is, accordingly, allowed and the order dated 9.9.2010 is reviewed. The order shall stand withdrawn. Since the workman has been reinstated, the writ petition filed by the management, is rendered infructuous and is dismissed as such. November 12, 2010 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE