ORDER Anjani Kumar, J.—Heard Sri J. N. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and learned standing counsel representing the respondents No. 1 and 2 as well as Ms. Bharti Sapru, learned counsel for workman/respondent No. 3. 2. The petitioner-employer by means of present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has challenged the award of the Labour Court (III), U. P., Kanpur, dated 31st May, 1982, passed in Adjudication Case No. 101 of 1980, copy whereof is appended as Annexure-9 to the writ petition. 3. The following dispute was referred to the Labour Court for adjudication. “Kya sewajojkon dwara apne shramik Sukhdev (Putra Banke Singh) winder V. S. 8050 Rotating Shift Drawying and Spinning Vibhag ko dinank 23.8.1978 se karya se prithak/vanchit kiya jana uchit tatha/athwa vaidhanik hai? Yadi nahi, to sambandhit shramik kya labh/anutosh (Relief) pane ka adhikari hai tatha kis anya vivran sahit?” 4. The Labour Court after exchange of the pleadings, affidavit and the evidence adduced by the parties have considered the materials on record and arrived at the conclusion that the termination of services of the workman concerned with effect from 23rd August, 1978 without complying with the provision of Section 6N of the U. P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’) and without holding any domestic enquiry, is illegal and unjustified, therefore, labour court directed the reinstatement of the workman concerned with continuity of service and full back wages. The labour court has further found that since there were admittedly three vacant posts of winder, the action of the employer in not confirming the workman concerned against one of those posts definitely amounts to unfair labour practice. Thus, the labour court directed that the workman concerned may be confirmed as winder within one month from the date of publication of this award. Thus, the labour court directed that the workman concerned may be confirmed as winder within one month from the date of publication of this award. It is submitted at Bar that pursuant to the interim order passed by this Court, the petitioner employers have confirmed the workman as per direction of the labour court with effect from August, 1990, therefore, since the employers have confirmed the workman pursuant to the award, this question is no more open to discussion, as the labour court has recorded finding of fact with regard to the termination of services of the workman concerned without complying with the provision of Section 6N of the Act and without holding any domestic enquiry, referred to above, which learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-employer failed to demonstrate that the award impugned in the present writ petition either suffers from the manifest error of law, or is perverse. 5. This Court in exercise of power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India declines to interfere with the award impugned in the present writ petition. This writ petition therefore, has no force and is accordingly dismissed. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, the parties shall bear their own costs.