Gangadhar Shastri Gune & Another vs Padma Hiralal Dhotre
2016 Latest Caselaw 3864 Bom

                                             1                     WP No.4508/1995

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY




                                                                             
                       BENCH AT AURANGABAD

                          WRIT PETITION NO.4508 OF 1995




                                                     
      1)       Gangadhar Shsstri Gune,
               Ayurved Hospital, Ahmednagar,




                                                    
               Through its Superintendent.


      2)       Gangadhar Shastri Gune
               Ayurved College, through its




                                      
               Principal, r/o Ahmednagar.             =        PETITIONERS


               VERSUS
                             
                            
      Mrs. Padma w/o Hiralal Dhotre,
      Age:Major, occu. Service,
      R/o 4027, Chitale Road,
      


      Ahmednagar.                                     =        RESPONDENT 
   



                                       -----
      Mr.VS Bedre, Advocate for Petitioners;
      None for respondent, though served.





                                       -----
                                   CORAM :  P.R.BORA, J.

DATE :

15 th

July,2016.

ORAL JUDGMENT:

1) Heard. The present petition is filed

against the judgment and order dated 6 th February,

1995 passed by the Industrial Court, Ahmednagar

in Complaint (ULP) No.118/1991, whereby the

Industrial Court has directed the present

petitioner to give promotion to the complainant

therein, i.e. present respondent, as Dresser

w.e.f. 1st May, 1991 and to offer her all the

benefits and consequential benefits to the post

of Dresser w.e.f. 1st March, 1991.

2) This Court, while granting Rule in the

matter, has passed the following order on 9.11.1995, -

" Heard Shri Bedre for the petitioner and Shri A.A.Shastri for the respondent.

                       .     Rule.
                       .     Interim   stay   to   the   back   wages 
      

bu the respondent should be continued to be employed as Dresser only and

should be paid emoluments applicable to the Dresser. "

3) From the documents on record it can be

gathered that in the year 1991, the original

complainant was aged about 54 years. Though the

interim stay was granted by this court while

admitting the petition, it was only in respect of

the back wages. Perusal of the interim order

shows that the petitioners were directed to

continue the respondent as Dresser only and were

directed to pay her the emoluments applicable to

the post of Dresser. The Industrial court, vide

impugned order had directed the present

petitioners to promote the respondent on the post

of Dresser and to pay her all the benefits and

consequential benefits of the said post of

Dresser w.e.f. 1st March, 1991.

4) Today, none was present for the

respondent. There is nothing on record to show

that any grievance was made by the

respondent/employee that the petitioners have not

complied with the interim order passed by this

Court on 9.11.1995.

5) As stated earlier, the

respondent/employee must have been long back

retired from the services after attaining the age

of superannuation. In the circumstances, it

appears that by passage of time, the present

petition has become infructous and nothing

remains to be considered. The petition,

therefore, stands dismissed as infructuous.

Rule discharged.

sd/-

(P.R.BORA)

JUDGE

bdv/