: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE SIDE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.1006 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.1006 OF 2005 WRIT PETITION NO.1006 OF 2005 1. Sada Ladu Raul & Ors....Petitioners. V/s. State of Maharashtra ..Respondent. Mr.U.P.Warunjikar for the Petitioners. Mr.C.R.Sonawane, AGP for the Respondent. CORAM: A.P.SHAH & CORAM: A.P.SHAH & CORAM: A.P.SHAH & J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. J.H.BHATIA, JJ. DATE : 11th July, 2005. DATE : 11th July, 2005. DATE : 11th July, 2005. P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: 1. Heard the Advocate for the Petitioners. 2. The Petition is devoid of any substance. The complaint filed by the Petitioners under the MRTU & PULP Act, was allowed by the Labour Court vide order dated 6/10/97 directing to reinstate the Petitioners with continuity of service. A direction was also issued to pay to each of the Petitioners a lumsum compensation of Rs.5,000/- in lieu of their claim for back wages. The Petitioners did not challenge this order. However, the Respondent filed Revision Application before the Industrial Court. The Revision : 2 : Application came to be dismissed on 3.9.99. Thus, the order of the Labour Court has attained finality. By this Petitioner, the Petitioner is seeking to agitate the issue of back wages on the ground that in some other case, the Labour Court granted full back wages to the workers involved in that Petition. Surely, the Petitioners cannot be allowed to re-open this issue after a lapse of more than 8 years. The order of the Labour Court has already been implemented by the Respondents. Under the circumstances, no relief can be granted to the Petitioners. The Petition is dismissed. (A.P.SHAH,J.) (A.P.SHAH,J.) (A.P.SHAH,J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.) (J.H.BHATIA, J.)