Judgment 1. All things considered. The petitioner-appellant was one amongst the six against whom action was taken. Three went to the Labour Court. All were similarly situated. Any relief which was granted by the Labour Court was in the facts and circumstances of the case. The petitioner-appellant did not go to the Labour Court. He desires that he should receive a similar treatment as was provided to the three persons. 2. The Labour Court is a court of special jurisdiction where matters relating to misdemeanour of an employee or arbitrariness of the employer is adjudicated. The petitioner appellant received the benefit of re-employment to the effect that there would be continuity of service in so far as the pension is concerned. The petitioner -appellant having received this part of the relief was now seeking continuity of service also. Ultimately, this order was withdrawn on the ground that what was granted to the petitioner-appellant was (a) through back door and (b) as a favour. 3. The petitioner-appellant should be thankful for the relief which he received by way of salary and what was paid to him he was not put under a direction to return it. 4. There is no error in the order on the writ petition. 5. Dismissed.