IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 7157 of 1991 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : NO to see the judgements? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? : NO 3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : NO of the judgement? 4. Whether this case involves a substantial question : NO of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India, 1950 of any Order made thereunder? 5. Whether it is to be circulated to the Civil Judge? : NO -------------------------------------------------------------- LAKHA RANMAL ODEDARA Versus STATE OF GUJARAT -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 7157 of 1991 MR YOGESH S LAKHANI for Petitioner No. 1 NOTICE SERVED for Respondent No. 1 MR JR NANAVATI for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA Date of decision: 19/10/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT The petitioner in this petition has been working as daily wager with Respondent no. 2 - Municipality and it was his say that Respondent no. 2 - Municipality has been giving him artificial break, which is under challenge in this petition. The petitioner has sought a direction to the effect that the respondents shall treat the petitioner as regular permanent employee of Respondent No. 2 - Municipality. 2. In view of the subsequent development and statement made by learned Advocate Shri J.R. Nanavati appearing on behalf of Respondent No. 2, it is not necessary to set out the facts in detail and deal with the petition at length. 3. Mr. Nanavati states that in light of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal, the services of the petitioner has been regularised by Respondent No. 2 Municipality as per the directions given in the said award. 4. In light of this statement, this petition has now become infructuous and is disposed of accordingly. Rule is discharged and ad-interim relief granted is vacated in light of the award made by the Industrial Tribunal. No order as to costs. (D.A.Mehta, J.) pallav