1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE WRIT PETITION NO.4625 OF 1996 Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation & Anr. ...Petitioners. Vs. Chandrakant Madhavrao Karle. ...Respondent. .... Mr. G.S. Hegde for the Petitioners. Mr. S.R. Nargolkar for the Respondent. ..... CORAM :DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. June 25, 2008. P.C.: After the hearing of the petition, Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners has stated that the Petitioners would withdraw the order dated 29th September 1994 since it was passed without furnishing to the Respondent an opportunity of being heard. Learned Counsel states that a fresh order would be passed, after issuing a notice to show cause to the Respondent and affording him an opportunity of a hearing. In that view of the matter, since the 2 action that was complained of before the Industrial Court has been recalled, the complaint of unfair labour practices and the judgment of the Industrial Court at Pune that is impugned in these proceedings would not survive. The impugned judgment and order is accordingly set aside. However, while doing so, it is clarified that it would be open to the Petitioners to take fresh action as the Petitioners may be advised to adopt in accordance with law. This order has emanated with the consent both of the Petitioners and the Respondent and their Counsel. Since the Respondent has retired from service, there shall be a direction in the interests of justice that the Petitioners shall issue a notice to show cause to the Respondent, if any, within four weeks from today. The Respondent would have a period of six weeks to file his reply from the date of receipt of the notice. Final orders shall be passed within a period of eight weeks of the receipt of the reply. The petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. ....