The petitioners have filed the writ petition on a premise that against the dismissal of Writ Petition No. 2190 of 2001 where they have questioned the validity of the award dated 09.12.1994 has been dismissed and since against the said dismissal they have preferred a Review Application/Petition No. 222 of 2006. Hence the subsequent action of executing the award dated 07.12.1994 by invoking Section 33-C2 may be kept in abeyance. It is on this premise, the writ petition was filed by the petitioners. Today, when the case was taken up by this Court it has been informed by Mr. M.C.Pant, learned counsel for respondent no.3 that the review petition preferred by the petitioners has been dismissed by this Court on 01.03.2007. Consequently, they preferred an SLP, bearing SLP No. 6944 of 2007 which too has been dismissed by the Hon’ble Apex Court vide judgment dated 23.04.2007. Hence, as a matter of fact when the SLP itself has been dismissed on merits nothing survives in the writ petition. Thus, this writ petition too fails and is dismissed with the direction to the petitioners to comply with the award dated 09.12.1994. At this stage, learned counsel for the respondent no.3 submits that in pursuance of the award partly the same has been complied with and the respondent no.3 has been reinstated. The only part which was sought to be executed was with regard to the settlement of wages as passed by the award dated 09.12.1994. Since the writ petition has been dismissed in the light of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court dated 23.04.2007, the petitioners are directed to settle the wages in the light of the award.
