Judgment Heard Shri Mohokar, the learned counsel for the petitioner. None appears for respondent No.2. 2] The petitioner filed Complaint (ULP) No. 414 of 2006, before the Industrial Court at Nagpur, claiming the reliefs as under; "[1] Hold and declare that the respondent has engaged in Unfair Labour Practice under Item 9 Scheduled IV of the ULP Act by nor providing the work from 17.11.2005 and non payment of wages; [2] quash and set aside the show cause notice dated 27.02.2006 and enquiry proceedings dated 27.03.2006 by holding it as illegal arbitrarily and issued without any cause and in absence of any misconduct on the part of complainant. [3] Direct the respondent to withdraw the above reported U.L.P permanently and perpetually. [4] Direct the respondent to provide the work and pay the wages from 17.11.2005 to the complainant till the complainant provide the work and exonerate the complaint from the misconduct as alleged under Clause 24(6) in the show cause notice dated 27.02.2006. [4a] Hold and declare chargesheet dated 12.01.2008 and enquiry therein conducted outsider is illegal and by way of engaging an unfair labour practices under Item 9 of Schedule IV of U.L.P Act on the part of the respondent, and to quash and set aside the same and exonerated the complainant from the alleged misconduct [5] Grant any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deemed fit and proper under the circumstances and facts of the case and in the interst of justice, equity and fair play". This complaint was dismissed by the Industrial Court by its judgment and order dated 21.02.2009 and hence the employee is before this Court in this writ petition. 3] On 30.04.2009, this Court had passed an order as under; "It is clear from a perusal of the petition and from hearing the learned counsel for the parties that the order dated 24.02.2009 impugned in this petition cannot be assailed before this Court and this writ petition is tenable only against the order passed by the Industrial Court, Nagpur, on 21st of February, 2009. The relief sought by the petitioner in prayer clause (ii) is hereby rejected. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to challenge the order dated 24.02.2009 before the appropriate forum. The relief sought by the petitioner in prayer clause (ii) is hereby rejected. The petitioner is, however, at liberty to challenge the order dated 24.02.2009 before the appropriate forum. Writ petition may be listed for admission/final hearing on 18th of June, 2009." 4] It appears that on 24.02.2009 i.e. after the decision of the Industrial Court, the petitioner was terminated from service after holding an enquiry. This court granted the petitioner liberty to challenge the order of termination before appropriate forum. In fact, such complaint is filed and pending for decision. In view of this, it is open for the labour Court to consider all the challenges to the order of termination dated 24.02.2009 in a pending complaint. The question of payment of wages to the petitioner during the period from 17.11.2005 to 03.06.2008 is also related with his termination on 24.02.2009 as the charge against the petitioner was that he was absent on duty during the said period. 5] In view of the fact that the petitioner has filed the complaint challenging the termination order dated 24.02.2009, nothing survives in this writ petition and the labour Court shall decide the complaint pending before it on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made in the judgment impugned in the present petition to the extent it pertains to challenge the termination dated 24.02.2009. Writ petition is dismissed. No order as to cost.