JUDGEMENT 1. A preliminary objection is taken that the petitioners had earlier filed C.W.J.C. No. 15722 of 2001 precisely for the same relief which was dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 22.6.2004 when learned counsel for the petitioners, after some arguments, sought permission to withdraw the writ petition, and thus the present writ petition is not maintainable. 2. The aforesaid proposition has been clearly laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Sarguja Transport Service V/s. State Transport Appellate Tribunal: AIR 1987 SC 88 . 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the decision of the Apex Court in Sarguja Transport Service case has been explained and distinguished by the Apex Court in the case of Sarva Shramik Sanghatana (KV), Mumbai V/s. State of Maharashtra and Others: (2008)1 SCC 494 , in paragraph-19 of which it has been held as follows: "19. In the present case, we are satisfied that the application for withdrawal of the first petition under Section 25-0(1) was made bona fide because the respondent Company had received a letter from the Deputy Labour Commissioner on 5.4.2007 calling for a meeting of the parties so that an effort could be made for an amicable settlement. In fact, the respondent Company could have waited for the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing of its application under Section 25-0(1), on the expiry of which the application would have deemed to have been allowed under Section 25-0(3). The fact that it did not do so, and instead applied for withdrawal of its application under Section 25-0(1), shows its bona fide. The respondent Company was trying for an amicable settlement, and this was clearly bona fide, and it was not a case of Bench-hunting when it found that an adverse order was likely to be passed against it. Hence, Sarguja Transport case is clearly distinguishable, and will only apply where the first petition was withdrawn in order to do Bench-hunting or for some other mala fide purpose." 4. So far as the observation of the Apex Court in Sarva Shramik Sanghatana case (supra) is concerned, the said decision was given in a case where an application under Section 25-0(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act had been withdrawn and subsequently a second application under the same Section had been filed. So far as the observation of the Apex Court in Sarva Shramik Sanghatana case (supra) is concerned, the said decision was given in a case where an application under Section 25-0(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act had been withdrawn and subsequently a second application under the same Section had been filed. The Apex Court noted the fact of bona fides of the respondent Company of that case in withdrawing the petition so that an effort could be made for an amicable settlement which was evident from the fact that the Company could have waited for the expiry of 60 days from the date of filing of, its application under Section 25-0(1) upon which the said application would have been deemed to have been allowed and thus it was not a case of Bench-hunting or for some other mala fide intention. It is evident that the Sarva Shramik Sanghatana case (supra) was neither a case under the Code of Civil Procedure nor a writ petition. 5. In the present case a writ petition of which withdrawal had been sought after some arguments by learned counsel for the petitioners has been sought to be reopened and revived by filing a fresh writ petition. The decision of the Apex Court in Sarguja Transport Service case, therefore, squarely applies to the present matter and it is not covered by the subsequent decision in Sarva Shramik Sanghatana case. 6. In the above circumstances, the writ application is dismissed as not maintainable.