HIGH COURT OF €:HHATTISGARHAT BILASPUR PETJTIONERS ^. ..A WMT PETITION No. 612 of 1998 1. Lekhram 8/0(8hri Baranlal resident of Bhothipar Khurd, Post Sin^ola, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 2. Budhram 8/0 Gendi^m R/o Village Haldi, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 3. Raju 8/0 Shri Fagwa R/o Village Haldi, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 4, Kishore Kumar S/o Genduram, resident of village Bhedia Post Sindhola, Rajnandgaon. 5. Dev Singh S/o Siyara-m Bhothipar Khurd, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 6. Likhuram S/o Chanduram R7o Village Damantara, Post Surgi, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 7. Baleshwar S/o Budhram, R/o Village Usribode, Post Sindhola, Distt. Rajnaiidgaon. 8. Amrit S/o Ramnath Mudhpar, Surgi Rajnandgaon. 9. Bahurdas S/o Dakhari Post Surgi Distt. Rajnandgaon. lO.Tikuram S/o Kejuram R/oKotra, Surgi Distt. Rajnandgaon. ll.Onkar 8/0 Bholeram R/o Bhuchibarda Surgi, Distt. Rajnandgaon,' 12.GokuI 8/0 Mansingh Chirchar, Village Bhardakala Distt. Durg. 13.Ragliuram S/o Rameshwar Village Jewartala, Post Tangwa Distt, Durg, 14.Makhan S/o Ramji, R/o Village Smdhola; Distt. Rajnaiidgaon. IS.Jagdish S/o Mehattar, R7o Sonesarar,Post Karamtara, Distt. Rajnandgaon. l6.Wibhishan S/o Ankalu Post Karmtara., Distt. Rajnandgaon. 17,Mansharam S^ Balduram, MokalL Karamtara, ^ ^ RE8PONDENT8 Distt. Rajnandgaon. IS.Dhurauram S/o Sukaluram 87o Ke?rihalori, Surgi Distit. Rajnandgaon. 19.Ganeshrani S/o Firturam, Nawagaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon^ 20.1shwarlal S/b Deendayal Gangatta, Distt. Rajnandgaon. 21.Anandram S/o Shiv Prasad, Bhafgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon. VERSUS 1. State Industrial Court, Bench at Jabalpur, JABALPUR. 2. Rajai'am Maiz Products Limited, Surgi Road Mohad, Distt. Rajnandgaon (MP) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri,A Present: Shri Parag Kotecha, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri P.K-C.Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Shri R.S.Baghel, Advoeate for the respondent No. 2. ORALOM)ER (Passed on 07th day of July, 2008) 1. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that on account of subsequent developments, this petition has become intructuous as nothing sundves in. this matter to be adjudicated. Leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No. 2 does xiot controvert the said submission. 2. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed as having become mfmctiious. No order asto costs. i~ Sd/- 1 SatishK.Agnihotri Judge Amit