ORDER : S.R Brahmbhatt, J. Heard the learned advocates appearing for the parties. The applicants have, by way of this application, approached this Court with the following prayers: a) This Honourable Court may be pleased to allow and admit this application and direct the respondent no. 1 personally remain present before this Hon'ble Court and to explain the contumacious conduct. b) Your Lordships may be pleased to initiate appropriate proceedings for contempt of the court against Respondent no. 1 and punish them appropriately for willful disobedience and non-compliance with the order and direction passed by this Hon'ble High Court in order dated 10.3.2015 passed in SCA No. 7313/2007. c) Your Lordships may be pleased to direct the respondent no. 1 to comply with the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 10.3.2015 passed in SCA No. 7313/2007. 2. Thus, in short, what is under challenge is the non-compliance with the order passed by the Labour Court and confirmed by this Court. The applicants were ordered to be reinstated with appropriate relief of 25% back-wages and costs of Rs. 500/- each vide order dated 30.9.2006 in Reference (LCA) No. 989/1990. The said order was subject matter of challenge in this Court in SCA being Special Civil Application No. 7313/2007 which came to be dismissed by this Court on 10-.3.2015 The applicants have to take out this application for seeking compliance of the order passed by Labour Court, which came to be confirmed by this Court. 3. Learned advocate Mr. Pandya for the applicants has invited court's attention to the affidavit-in-reply and submitted that the calculation of the amount which was said to be paid, is also not coming forth, and in that view of the matter, the applicants are left with no other remedy. The applicants are, in fact, entitled to seek appropriate benefit of regularization and other benefits which would otherwise flowing from the order in question. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that looking to the order passed by the Labour Court and the High Court's order, it cannot be said that the applicants were entitled to more than what were observed in the order in question. 4. Learned advocate Mr. Munshaw submitted that looking to the order passed by the Labour Court and the High Court's order, it cannot be said that the applicants were entitled to more than what were observed in the order in question. 4. We are of the considered view that when the applicants have been reinstated on the original posts and when the back-wages to the tune of 25% is paid, the learned advocate for the applicant is unable to point out that the said amount is deficient in any manner, then the court would not go further that there is a non-compliance of the order. The question of regularization or any other benefits as are not flowing from the order either of the Labour Court or High Court, the same would not warrant any consideration in that behalf. Suffice it to say that the order would not come in the way of the applicants in approaching appropriate forum for appropriate relief. With this observation, this application is required to be dismissed and it is dismissed with no order as to costs, as the order is complied with and nothing remains in the application. Notice discharged.