[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Bombay High Court
Maharashtra State Road Transport ... vs Dharma Waman Pagar on 23 January, 2026
Author: Amit Borkar
Bench: Amit Borkar
2026:BHC-AS:3629
1-wp3238-2009.doc
AGK
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
WRIT PETITION NO.3238 OF 2009
Maharashtra State Road Transport
Corporation ... Petitioner
V/s.
ATUL Dharma Waman Pagar ... Respondents
GANESH
KULKARNI
Digitally signed by
ATUL GANESH
KULKARNI
Date: 2026.01.23
Ms. Pinky M. Bhansali for the petitioner.
19:10:12 +0530
CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J.
DATED : JANUARY 23, 2026
P.C.:
1. The petitioner challenges the judgment and order dated 31
August 2007 in Complaint No. 99 of 2005 issued by the Labour
Court. That order directed the petitioner to treat the respondent as
in continuous service until his retirement and to pay full wages up
to that point. The Industrial Court confirmed the direction of
reinstatement by order dated 15 January 2008. It declined
pensionary benefits.
2. The respondent superannuated in 2004. During the
pendency of this writ petition, the respondent received gratuity
and provident fund.
3. The petitioner contends that the Labour Court exceeded its
jurisdiction. The petitioner states that the respondent was not in
service after a particular date. The petitioner further argues that
the order to treat him in continuous service until retirement is
1-wp3238-2009.doc
unsustainable because there was no employer-employee
relationship after cessation of service. The petitioner also
challenges the direction to pay full wages until retirement.
According to the petitioner, the Labour Court recorded conclusions
without proper evidence.
4. The respondent supports the concurrent findings. The
respondent submits that the issue of pensionary benefits has been
resolved because he has already received gratuity and provident
fund. The respondent points out that he retired in 2004 and that
no further relief survives.
5. The issue before this Court is whether any surviving cause
exists for adjudication. The Labour Court ordered reinstatement
with continuity of service and full wages until retirement. The
Industrial Court confirmed the reinstatement but declined
pensionary benefits. The respondent superannuated in 2004. He
has already received gratuity and provident fund.
6. The challenge raised by the petitioner pertains to legality of
the Labour Court's direction. This Court examined the pleadings,
the operative directions, and subsequent developments. Upon such
review, it is apparent that the core relief of reinstatement cannot
operate today. The respondent retired long before the writ petition
reached final hearing. The Labour Court's direction to treat him in
continuous service until retirement has already spent its force due
to the factual event of superannuation.
7. The direction regarding pensionary benefits is no longer in
issue. The Industrial Court declined such benefits. Despite that, the
1-wp3238-2009.doc
concerned authorities have disbursed gratuity and provident fund.
The respondent does not press any further claims. The petitioner
does not dispute the fact of payment.
8. Any adjudication on the correctness of the Labour Court's
evaluation of evidence would serve no practical purpose. Courts do
not undertake academic review when no executable relief remains.
The dispute has become infructuous by passage of time and by the
conduct of parties who have satisfied the material benefits arising
out of the service tenure.
9. In view of the above findings, nothing survives for
consideration. The writ petition stands disposed of. There shall be
no order as to costs.
(AMIT BORKAR, J.)
