THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH WRIT PETITION No. 15440 of 2007 ORDER: This writ petition is filed seeking issuance of writ of certiorari by calling the records in I.D.No.177 of 2004 and declaring the Award dated 22.08.2006 published vide G.O.Rt.No.2323 dated 04.11.2006, on 07.12.2006, on the file of Labour Court-1, Hyderabad as null, void and illegal and consequently quash the impugned Award. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Government Pleader for the respondent. The 2nd respondent is the workman. He raised industrial dispute vide I.D.No.177 of 2004 on the file of the 1st respondent herein under Section 2(A)(2) of the I.D.Act, 1947, questioning removal from service by order dated 22.08.2006. Learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court-1, Hyderabad, allowed the I.D., and passed the order holding that the workman is entitled for full backwages and continuity of service from 19.04.2004 to 30.09.2005. For execution of the Award of the Labour Court, the Workman filed E.P.No.3 of 2007. Aggrieved by the Award of the Labour Court, the Management filed this writ petition. This Court, while ordering Rule Nisi on 20.07.2007 granted interim stay of further proceedings in the Labour Court Award dated 22.08.2005 in I.D.No.177 of 2004, including the proceedings in E.P.No.3 of 2007 on the file of Labour Court, and permitted the Workman to withdraw half of the amount deposited by the Management in the E.P.No.3 of 2007 filed by the Workman, without furnishing any security. The case of the petitioner-Management is that the 2nd respondent-Workman was terminated from service in accordance with law. Questioning the same, the workman raised industrial dispute I.D.No.177 of 2004. The Labour Court, without considering the plea of the petitioner herein/Management, allowed the I.D. It is also submitted that in compliance of the Award of the Labour Court, the 2nd respondent-workman has been reinstated into service, and thereafter the workman was removed from service. Learned counsel for the 2nd respondent-workman would submit that in compliance of the Award of the Labour Court, the workman was reinstated into service and then the petitioner-Management filed the writ petition, and before obtaining any orders in the writ petition, the workman was again removed from service. The counsel filed a Memo dated 07.12.2011, and submits that the 2nd respondent-workman is not willing to pursue the matter any further and that he is not interested in reinstatement into service with the petitioner, and that he may be permitted to withdraw the remaining 50% of the amount deposited in E.P.No.3 of 2007, in the Labour Court, and that an understanding has been arrived at between the petitioner and the 2nd respondent to that effect. In pursuance of the Memo dated 07.12.2011 filed by the 2nd respondent and, in view of the submissions made by both the counsel with regard to the understanding arrived between the parties, without going into the merits of the case, this writ petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. __________________________ JUSTICE G. CHANDRAIAH 20th December, 2011 KSM