1 S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.467/2004. THE MANAGER, NATIONAL HANDLOOM CORPORATION, JODHPUR VS. DHAMMU RAM BISHNOI AND ANOTHER DATE OF ORDER : 09.04.2007. HON'BLE MR. GOVIND MATHUR, J. Mr. Suresh Shrimali } Mr. Rajesh Chaudhary } for the petitioner. Mr. Dhammu Ram Bishnoi respondent workman is present in person. By the order dated 15.03.2004, this petition for writ was disposed of by following order: “Heard learned counsel for the parties. However, in the spirit of Lok Adalat, both the learned counsel agree that the matter may be decided in the manner that the petitioner will reinstate the respondent- workman with effect from today as a fresh appointee, and the workman will not claim any back-wages, or any past benefits. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.” Being aggrieved by the order aforesaid, the workman preferred a D.B. Civil Special Appeal bearing No.336/2004, that came to be allowed by the order dated 01.03.2005 with a 2 direction to decide the writ petition on merits. Against the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court, a Special Leave Petition was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court and that was granted on 21.04.2006. On the same day, the appeal was accepted by setting aside the judgment passed by the Division Bench with a direction to learned Single Judge to dispose of the application for re-calling the order dated 15.03.2004. The application aforesaid came to be rejected by the order dated 15.01.2007. Despite the rejection of the application, the writ petition was listed before this Court on 19.03.2007 for the purpose of admission. While noting the fact that the application has already been dismissed on 15.01.2007, because of the statement of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the employer is ready to reinstate the workman in service, the matter was fixed today for ensuring compliance of the order dated 19.03.2007. The order passed by this Court on 19.03.2007 reads as follows: - “In view of the order of the Court dated 15.01.2007, nothing survives in the matter as the application for recalling the order has already been dismissed. Counsel for the petitioner states that in compliance of the order dated 15.03.2004, the respondent workman shall be reinstated in service forthwith. The respondent workman present in Court states that he will report to the Employer day after tomorrow i. e. on 21.03.2007 for getting 3 him reinstated in service. He has also made a doubt as to whether the employer shall permit him to join the duties or not. A solemn statement is given by the learned counsel for the petitioner that compliance of the order dated 15.03.2004 shall be made in true spirit, therefore, I found the doubt created by the workman ill-founded. Be that as it may, the writ petition be listed to report for ensuring the compliance of the order dated 15.03.2004 on 02.04.2007.” It is stated by learned counsel for the petitioner today that the workman even on 21.03.2007 did not choose to get himself reinstated in service as he is agitating the issue only for getting the back wages. The respondent workman who is present in the Court also emphasized for getting back wages. In view of it, what it appears is that the workman is not interested in getting himself reinstated in service. This petition for writ has already been disposed of in light of the order passed by this Court on 15.03.2004 read with the order dated 19.03.2007. Let it be consigned to record. (GOVIND MATHUR)J. Anil/