Sibghat Ullah Khan, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties. This writ petition is directed against award dated 07.02.1992 given by Presiding Officer, Labour Court (II), U.P. Meerut in Adjudication Case No. 175 of 1989. The matter, which was referred to the labour court, was as to whether the action of the Petitioner employer terminating the services of its workman Respondent No. 1 Dheer Singh w.e.f. 03.12.1988 was just and valid or not. The Labour Court held that termination was illegal and directed reinstatement with full back wages.
(2.) IN this writ petition on 01.11.2010 when arguments were heard and judgment was reserved, two orders were passed, which are quoted below: Supplementary affidavit has been filed by learned Counsel for the Petitioner. Heard learned Counsel for the parties on the merit of the writ petition. Judgment reserved. Learned Counsel for both the parties shall at once ascertain from their clients as to whether workman Respondent is working and is being paid wages or not. After reserving the judgment in the forenoon, learned Counsel for the Petitioner employer intimated the court in the afternoon that workman -Respondent had been taken back in service, was paid regular wages and has now retired. Accordingly, now the only question of back wages survives regarding which the judgment is to be given. In this writ petition on 18.05.1992, an interim order was passed staying the back wages on the condition that future wages were paid. In view of this the workman was reinstated.
(3.) IN case the writ petition had been heard before the retirement of the workman, the position would have been different.;