IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 4103 of 1990 with SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 8617 TO 8624 ALL of 1990 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD ============================================================ 1. Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed : YES 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- BULESHWAR DAYAL Versus SURAT BOARD & PATER MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: MR HM PARIKH for Petitioners MR YOGESH VYAS for M/S TRIVEDI & GUPTA for Respondent No. 1 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE H.K.RATHOD Date of decision: 15/10/1999 ORAL JUDGEMENT Today, when this group of petitions was taken up for final hearing by this Court, Mr. Vyas, the learned advocate appearing for M/s. Trivedi & Gupta, learned advocates for the respondent Co. has made a statement before this Court that the petitioners workmen have challenged the interim order passed by the Labour Court, Surat in Reference No. 275/88, 276/88, 277/88, 296/88 to 299/88, 301/88, 318/88 dated 16.11.1989 in this group of petitions. According to the statement made by Mr. Vyas, the main references which were raised by the workmen have been disposed of by the labour Court. Said statement made by Mr. Vyas has not been disputed by Mr. Parikh who appeared on behalf of the petitioner-workmen. Therefore, according to both the advocates appearing for the respective parties, this group of petitions has, now, become infructuous since the main references which were raised before the labour court have already been disposed of by the labour court. Accordingly, all these petitions are disposed of as having become infructuous. Rule is discharged in each of the petitions. Interim relief granted earlier shall stand vacated. There shall be no order as to costs. Since these petitions are disposed of on the statement made by Mr.Vyas, learned advocate for the respondents, in the interest of justice, I am granting liberty to the petitioners to move this Court by mere note in case of difficulty for revival of the petitions. 15.10.1999. (H.K.Rathod,J.) Vyas