: 1 : 4116-11-wp=.sxw UJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO. 4116 OF 2011 The Chief Executive Officer Baramati Sah Bank Ltd. .. Petitioner v/s. The General Secretary Bank Employees Union .. Respondent ......... Mr. A.P. Vanarse for the petitioner Ms. Pratibha Bora i/b A.S. Rao for respondent ......... CORAM : A.V. NIRGUDE, J DATE : 8th DECEMBER,2011. P.C. : 1. The scope of this writ petition is quite limited because the relief claimed by the petitioner is of limited nature. The facts leading to filing of this writ petition are as under. 2. The petitioner is a party to the proceeding, which is pending before Wage Board appointed for the Employees Co-operative Bank in the State of : 2 : 4116-11-wp=.sxw Maharashtra. As inteirm relief, the Wage Board directed the petitioner to pay Rs.1,200/- more per month to the employees w.e.f. 1st January, 2000. The petitioner thereafter challenged this order before the Industrial Court by filing the Writ Petition No.7 of 2008. But on 29th September, 2009, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner informed to the learned Judge of the Industrial Court that the petitioner has been paying more wages than what was ordered as interim relief. He says that he therefore would not press the Revision. The learned Judge recorded this statement and passed the impugned order, which indicated that the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner had withdrawn the Revision. It is now suggested that the revision was not pressed because the petitioner had started complying with the interim relief. So the learned Judge of the Industrial Court ought to have stated in the order that in view of the complying with the impugned order, Revision would not survive and the same ought to have been disposed of as infructuous. The writ petition is allowed and the impugned order is substituted as under. 3. “The revision stands disposed of as infructuous”. (A.V. NIRGUDE, J.)