1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 6222 OF 1995 The Pune District Central Co-Operative Bank, Pune. ... Petitioner. V/s. Mr. D.K. Dabhade. ... Respondent. .... Mr. K.S. Bapat for the Petitioner. Mr. A. S. Rao for the Respondent. .... CORAM : DR. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD,J. 11TH APRIL 2008. P.C. :- The Respondent was working as a Junior Agent with the Petitioner when his services were terminated by an order dated 26th March 1988. The Respondent instituted a proceeding under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946. By an interim order dated 20th September 1988, the Labour Court directed reinstatement. The Respondent was reinstated on 23rd September 1988. A revision against the interim order was dismissed. In a Writ Petition filed by the 2 Petitioner (Writ Petition 112 of 1989), thisorder of the Industrial Court was set aside. The Court has however been informed that the Respondent continued to remain in service. On 19th September 1989, the application filed by the Respondent was allowed and an order of reinstatement was passed together with back wages for a period of approximately six months between the date of the order of termination and the date of the reinstatement. An appeal against the order of the Labour Court was dismissed on 29th July 1994. These proceedings were instituted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution to challenge the order of the Industrial Court. At the hearing of the Petition, the Court has been informed that the Respondent has agreed to give up his claim for back wages and all other consequential monetary benefits and hence, the Petitioner has agreed not to press the Writ Petition since the Respondent has already been reinstated. It has been agreed that the period between the date of the order of termination and the date of reinstatement shall be treated as without a break only for the purposes of enabling the Respondent to have the benefit of continuity of service 3 in the computation of his terminal benefits. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent has desired that the Court records the personal presence of the Respondent. In view of the agreement which is been arrived at between the parties, which is reflected in the statements made in the aforesaid terms before the Court by the learned Counsel, the Petition is on the request of the learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner permitted to be withdrawn. There shall be no order as to costs. -----