ORDER 1. The appellant herein raised a dispute which came to be referred to the Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. l, Bhopal, wherein the following issue was taken up for consideration by the said Labour Court: Whether it is justified not to confirm Shri Rajesh Jain, s/o Shri PC.. Jain, Bhopal on expiry of the period of probation? If not the relief he is entitled to and the directions to be issued to the employer in this regard? 2. After hearing the parties, the said court made the award on 8-8-1991 wherein the respondent herein was directed that the appellant be classified as permanent employee from 6-12-1983 and the difference of salary be paid to him and the cost of Rs 200 was imposed on the respondent. 3. It is an admitted fact that during the pendency of the proceedings there was departmental enquiry pending against the appellant which culminated in his removal from service which order has since become final. 4. The grievance of the appellant in this appeal is that the respondent has not given effect to the award of the Labour Court referred to hereinabove and has not recognised the appellant as a permanent employee in the cadre of Accountant. But the fact remains that after the award since the appellant was removed from the job the respondent has made offer of monetary benefits payable to him pursuant to the award. The question, therefore, for our consideration is whether such an order designating the appellant as an Accountant in the respondent Bank is necessary pursuant to the award of the Labour Court. 5. In view of the subsequent events that the appellant has since then been removed from service, we do not think this contention of the appellant can be accepted. The only relief that the appellant was entitled to subsequent to his removal is monetary benefit which has already been offered to the appellant. Therefore, we find no merit in this appeal hence this appeal is dismissed.