W.P. No.20869/2011 12.12.2011 Shri K. N. Pethia, learned counsel for the petitioners. Inter alia contending that petitioners who are working as Meter Readers on contract basis are being removed on the ground that they have completed 40 years of age, this writ petition is filed and challenge is made to the order Annexure P/1 dated 9.9.2011 by which it has been held by the competent authority that such of the petitioners who had completed 40 years of age and in whose case there is no order from the Labour Court their services be dispensed with. Record indicates that when a Circular was issued proposing to dispense with services of all Meter Reader appointed on Contract basis on completing the age of 40 years, various writ petitions were filed and more than 20 writ petitions were disposed of on 28.6.2010 by a common order passed in W.P. No.1110/2009 - Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Meter Vachak Sngh & Others Vs. State of M.P. & Others. Annexure P/6 is a copy of said order and the directions issued by the Division Bench reads as under :- "In the circumstances, for a period of one year aforesaid arrangement to continue, in the meantime, the Labour Court to make endeavor to decide the case of the employees, in case Labour Court decides the matter at the early date the order to operate till that date. The writ petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms. No costs." It is a case of the petitioners that the matter is still pending before the Labour Court and pending final adjudication by the Labour Court, dispensing with the service of the petitioners is illegal. It is clear that the question as to whether the services of the employees can be dispensed with or not on completing 40 years of age is subjudice before the Labour Court and matter is being taken up by the Labour Court in th light of the order passed by the Division Bench. For a period of one year protection was granted to the employees by the Division Bench and Labour Court was directed to make endeavor to decide the matter. If pending adjudication of the matter before the Labour Court the service conditions are being changed, employees can challenge the same before the Labour Court in accordance to Industrial Disputes Act. This Court having only granted protection for a period of one year, now no further indulgence is warranted. Once the Labour Court is seized the matter on merit and the petitioners have a remedy of ventilating their grievance before the Labour Court. Accordingly granting liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief from the Labour Court where the matters are pending, this writ petition is disposed of. (RAJENDRA MENON) J U D G E mrs. mishra