1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.3237 OF 2003 (MAHARASHTRA STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION, AMRAVATI ... VERSUS PARASMANI BAPURAO GAJBHIYE, R/O.SAUR, TAH. BHATKULI, DISTT. AMRAVATI & LBOUR COURT.) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Shri S.C.Mehadia, Advocate for Petitioner. Shri N.R.Saboo, Advocate for Respondent No.1. Mrs. I. Bodade, A.G.P. for Respondent No.2. CORAM : R.C.CHAVAN, J. DATE : JANUARY 06, 2010. 1. This petition by the Corporation is directed against judgments of the Judge, Labour Court, Amravati and Member, Industrial Court, Amravati, whereby the respondent / workman’s complaint about unfair labour practice was partly allowed, directing the petitioner Corporation to reinstate the respondent/ workman with continuity of service but without back wages. Since there was no stay, the respondent/ workman had been reinstated in service. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner informs that the respondent No.1 is reported dead. 2 3. Since the respondent had actually worked in pursuance of the orders of the Court there is no question of now disturbing that part of the order. Since back wages were not ordered to be paid there is nothing further that the petitioner-Corporation is required to do. 4. In view of this, the petition has become infructuous and is disposed of as such. JUDGE RR..