JUDGMENT Pradeep Nandrajog, C.J. - Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 2. The appellant Nos. 3 and 4 and husband and father respectively of appellants No. 1 and 2 were appointed as daily wage employees in the Agriculture Department of the State of Rajastehan in June, 1980. The work of the Agriculture Department in the Nursery where the appellants were employed was transferred to the District Soil Conservation Officer, Ajmer. The four continued to work in the Nursery under the District Soil Conservation Officer, Ajmer till October 17, 1985. In the meanwhile, an order was issued by the Additional Collector, Ajmer on October 04, 1985 transferring the Nursery and attaching the same to the Panchayat Samiti, Masuda. The four were thereby transferred in the Panchayat Samiti, Masuda. For reasons unknown the Vikas Adhikari of the Panchayat Samiti, Masuda, Distt. Ajmer terminated services of the four. They raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the labour Court by the appropriate Government on December 03, 1986. The labour Court passed an award in favour of the appellants on March 15, 1989, directing reinstatement with backwages. 3. The award being ex parte was set aside and it is resulted in second award dated May 09, 1994 being published. As per the said award the four were to be reinstated with full backwages and continuity in service. Writ petition filed by the third respondent challenging the award dated May 09, 1994 was dismissed. D.B. Special Appeal filed was also dismissed on July 13, 1998. Petition seeking special leave to appeal before the Supreme Court was dismissed on August 06, 1999. The four were neither reinstated with backwages and thereby they had resorted to file an application under Section 33 C of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and were able to obtain an order quantifying bakwages to be paid on July 13, 1998. 4. The four had to file an application under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 seeking implementation of the award. Ultimately, respondent No. 3 had to relent. Wages were paid. The four were reinstated in service on July 07, 2004. After two months and six days, on September 13, 2004 their services were terminated once again. 5. The four filed a writ petition pleading afore-noted facts. They pleaded that the termination was mala fide. 6. Ultimately, respondent No. 3 had to relent. Wages were paid. The four were reinstated in service on July 07, 2004. After two months and six days, on September 13, 2004 their services were terminated once again. 5. The four filed a writ petition pleading afore-noted facts. They pleaded that the termination was mala fide. 6. Unfortunately, the writ petition was dismissed in limine vide impugned order dated October 18, 2004, holding that the four have an alternative remedy to raise an industrial dispute. In the writ appeal filed, while issuing notice on December 15, 2004 operation of the impugned order terminating the services of the four were stayed. It was affirmed on September 20, 2010. 7. The four have, under the interim orders, continued to serve under respondent No. 3. They have since superannuated from service inasmuch as the order dated September 20, 2010 while confirming the interim order dated December 15, 2004 clarified that this would entitle to four to work beyond the age of 60 years. Lest pensionary benefits of the four is adversely effected, we cannot simply terminate the proceedings by noting that the issue has resolved itself. 8. The issue has not resolved itself because the pensionary benefits are at stake. 9. From the facts noted herein abvoe it would be apparent that respondent No. 3 was acting illegally. With great difficulty the four workmen were able to enforce the award which they had obtained in the year 1994. Reinstated in service, the services were terminated after two months and six days. No enquiry was held, no charge-sheet was served. The termination is ex facie mala fide. 10. We, therefore, dispose of the appeal setting aside the termination order dated September 13, 2004. 11. We note that appellant Nos. 1 and 2 having died. The wife of appellant No. 1 and the son of appellant No. 2 have been brought on record. Consequential benefits to the legal heirs in terms of family pension permissible as per law would be accorded by respondent No. 3. 12. No costs.