Judgment :- Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent. 2. The petitioner establishment has filed the present writ petition to quash the order passed by the second Additional Labour Court, Madras, the first respondent herein, dated 11. 2000, made in C.P.No.339 of 1998. It has been stated that the petitioner Laboratory is an establishment registered under the Tamilnadu Shops and Establishments Act, 1948. The second respondent was employed in the petitioner establishment as a regular executive and he had attained the age of superannuation in the year 1991. At the time of his superannuation, he had received all his retiral benefits including the provident fund, gratuity etc., Thereafter, on his request, he was allowed to continue in service in the petitioner establishment, on contract basis, from 10. 91 to 1994 and for a further period from 10. 1994 to 30.98. During his employment on contract basis, the second respondent was paid a consolidated sum of Rs.3500/-as wages. After the contract had expired on 30.3.98, in view of his resignation, the second respondent had approached the Labour Court, claiming a sum of Rs.16,153.84, towards leave wages for 60 days, under the category of earned leave and for 60 days under the category of casual leave, for the period he had worked from 4. 94 to 30.98. The Labour Court by its order, dated 11. 2000, made in C.P.No.339 of 1998, had ordered the payment of Rs.16,153.84 to the second respondent, erroneously, and without any basis. Challenging the said order of the first respondent Labour Court, dated 11. 2000, the petitioner establishment had filed the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Even though various grounds have been raised on behalf of the petitioner establishment to show that the second respondent is not eligible for payment of leave wages, as ordered by the Labour Court, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had agreed to settle the matter. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, it was agreed that the petitioner establishment, would pay a sum of Rs.8000/-as full and final settlement, towards the amount ordered to be paid to the second respondent by Labour Court by its order, dated 11. 2000, in C.P.No.339 of 1998. 5. 4. At this stage of the hearing of the writ petition, it was agreed that the petitioner establishment, would pay a sum of Rs.8000/-as full and final settlement, towards the amount ordered to be paid to the second respondent by Labour Court by its order, dated 11. 2000, in C.P.No.339 of 1998. 5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent had accepted the offer. In such circumstances, there is no necessity for this Court to go into the merits of the case at this stage. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner establishment had submitted that the agreed sum of Rs.8,000/- would be paid to the second respondent, directly, and after such payment had been made, the petitioner establishment would move the first respondent Labour Court by way of an appropriate petition to withdraw the amount deposited therein, to the credit of C.P.No.339 of 1998, pursuant to the order passed by this Court, on 22. 2002, in W.M.P.No.10207 of 2001 in W.P.No.7114 of 2001. 7. Recording the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner, as well as for the second respondent this writ petition stands closed as no further orders are required to be passed thereon. No costs.