Order The Supdt. of Police, Saran is present and a show cause is filed on his behalf. Perused the show cause. The explanation is accepted. No further action need be taken and this matter so far as the Supdt. of Police, Saran is concerned, is hereby closed. 2. Mr. P.K. Jha who is currently in the additional charge of the office of the Managing Director, District Central Cooperative Bank Limited, Chapra is present in court. A counter affidavit has also been filed on his behalf. In the counter affidavit, it is stated that he is substantively posted as the Dist. Cooperative Officer, Chapra and the office of .the Managing Director, District Central Cooperative Bank Limited having fallen vacant on 12.2.99 he was given additional charge of the Bank on 14.6.99. Shortly thereafter, he has reinstated the petitioner in the service of the bank, as directed by the award given by the Labour Court and steps have also been taken for payment of arrears of his wages in terms of the award. 3. The petitioner had come to this court making a grievance that though the award directing his reinstatement with back wages was given by the labour court on 23.4.93 and though it had become final and legally enforceable, the respondent Bank was sitting over the matter for all these years. Being upset by this blatant defiance of the award lawfully made by a tribunal of competent jurisdiction, this court had directed for the personal appearance of the Managing Director of the Bank. Pursuant to the direction given by this court Mr. Jha who is currently in the additional charge of the Bank appears and states that the petitioner has now been reinstated. 4. From what is stated above, it is evident that the responsibility for the non-implementation of the award does not really lie with Mr. Jha who took charge of the Bank only on 14.6.1999. The real culprits appear to be his predecessors in the Bank who sat over the matter in open defiance of the award for more than six years making the petitioner to move from pillar to post. Such response to a decree/award pronounced by a court of law is calculated to shake the faith of a citizen in courts and tribunals established by law. Such response to a decree/award pronounced by a court of law is calculated to shake the faith of a citizen in courts and tribunals established by law. If a workman having an award in his favour fails to get the fruits of the award, he is likely to loose faith in the system of law and the courts and tribunals established under that system. This court, therefore, views this matter with grave concern. It may be added here that this is not a case in isolation and this court has come across similar cases where what to speak of a private employer, even government departments and government Corporations are found sitting over awards made by industrial courts with complete impunity and without any action taken against them by the Labour Department. The Labour Commissioner may perhaps wish to ponder over how industrial tribunals/labour courts are being discredited in this State. So far as the case in hand is concerned this court considers it proper to direct the Labour Commissioner to further look into the matter. The Labour Commissioner must try to find out the person(s) who were posted as Managing Director of the Bank immediately after the award was pronounced and who seem to have deliberately sat over the matter in complete defiance of the award. Having identified the responsible person(s) the Labour Commissioner may report the matter to the concerned department for taking suitable action against them. 5. As the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed, this writ petition has become infructuous and the petitioner no longer wishes to press it. Let the records of this case be closed. 6. Let a copy of this order be forwarded to the Labour Commissioner.