IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No 1895 of 1987 For Approval and Signature: Hon'ble MR.JUSTICE N.G.NANDI ============================================================ 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 @ GUJARAT STATE ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus K. R. RAVAL -------------------------------------------------------------- Appearance: 1. Special Civil Application No. 1895 of 1987 MR HARDIK C RAWAL for Petitioner. RULE SERVED BY DS for Respondent No. 1 Mr.L.R.Pujari, Asst.GOVERNMENT PLEADER for Respondent No. 2 -------------------------------------------------------------- CORAM : MR.JUSTICE N.G.NANDI Date of decision: 13/07/2001 ORAL JUDGEMENT In this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner-Gujarat State Road Transport Corporation has been challenging the order, dated 28.1.1987 rejecting the application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 ("Act" for short) seeking approval for termination of the services of the respondent-driver. 2. The Labour Court dismissed the application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act considering the fact that the order terminating services of the respondent has been passed on 18.3.1986 and the order of termination of of services along with money order covering the wages for one month was sent on 19.3.1986. The approval application was filed on 19.3.1986. 3. It is stated by Mr.Raval, learned advocate for the petitioner that after termination of services, the respondent was reinstated in service in 1987 subject to the result of this petition. Thereafter, in the year 1989 services of the respondent were terminated because of his acts of misconduct. Thereafter also the respondent was reinstated in services and while in service, as above, the respondent has died sometime in the year 2000. It has been further stated that all the benefits have been paid to the dependents of respondent and that now nothing remains payable as regards services rendered by the respondent for the petitioner-Corporation. 4. In view of the death of the respondent during pendency of this writ petition, the challenge to the order dated 19.3.1986 rejecting the approval application under section 33(2)(b) of the Act has become academic and no order is necessitated as far as the prayer in this writ petition is concerned. 5. Therefore, this petition is required to be disposed of as no order is necessitated in view of the above facts. The petition is accordingly dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to revive this petition in case of any situation arising relating to the services of the deceased respondent with the petitioner-Corporation and in view of the order, dated 19.3.1986 rejecting the approval application under Section 33(2)(b) of the Act. Rule is discharged. No order as to costs. 13.7.2001 (N.G.GANDHI,J) mty