JUDGMENT
Pendse, J.
1. By this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioners sought relief of quashing order dated November 12, 1982 passed by respondent No. 3 declining to grant permission sought by the petitioner by application dated August 16, 1982 under Section 25- N(1)(c) of Industrial Disputes Act. The petitioners also challenge vires of the provisions of Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1976. The grava-man of the complaint of the petitioners was that the respondent No. 3 declined to grant permission to the petitioners to retrench the employees without any just and reasonable cause.
2. As regards the validity of the Act, the issue no longer survives in view of decision of the Supreme Court reported in (1992-II-LLJ-294) Workmen of Meenakshi Mills Ltd. v. Meenakshi Mills Ltd, and Anr. Shri Puri, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submitted that after the admission of the petition, as interim relief was refused, the petitioners could not retrench the workmen. The learned counsel submitted that during the pendency of this petition, the petitioner company was declared as a sick industry and a scheme has been drawn up by B.I.F.R. to which reference was made. In view of the subsequent developments the reliefs sought by the petitioners, seeking retrenchment of workmen, no longer survives. Shri Puri urged that the impugned order passed by respondent No. 3 is entirely unsustainable and is in violation of the guidelines issued by the Supreme Court for exercise of powers. It may be so, but no purpose will be served by setting aside that order. In view of the subsequent developments after the admission of the petition, Shri Puri requested that it is necessary to issue guidelines as to how the power should be exercised. We decline the invitation as, in our judgment, the decision of the Supreme Court sufficiently sets out the guidelines. In these circumstances, the reliefs sought in the petition have become merely academic and therefore it is not necessary to exercise the powers under writ jurisdiction.
3. Accordingly, petition fails and rule is discharged but there will be no order as to costs.