Judgment 1. When the matter was listed on 10.09.2013, there was no representation for the petitioner. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the matter is covered by order of this Court made in W.P.No.2049 of 2003 dated 31.10.2008 in favour of the respondent/workman. Thus, the matter is posted under the caption 'for dismissal'. Today also, there is no representation for the petitioner. 2. It is seen that a similar writ petition filed by the very same Management came to be dismissed in W.P.No.2049 of 2003 dated 31.10.2008. Learned counsel for the first respondent produced the xerox copy of the order made therein. Considering the said fact and by following the order made in the above similar matter, this writ petition is also dismissed. 3. Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the petitioner Management has deposited the Subsistence Allowance before the second respondent during the pendency of the proceedings and therefore, the first respondent may be permitted to withdraw the said amount. 4. If any such deposit is made by the petitioner Management, the first respondent is at liberty to withdraw the said amount by making appropriate application before the second respondent. No costs. The connected miscellaneous petition is closed.