JUDGMENT E.S .Indiresh, J. - In this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the order dated 18.11.2015 passed in Application No.6/2014 on the file of the Labour Court, Hubballi, under Section 33(C)(2) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the ID Act', for brevity). 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this writ petition are that; 2.1. The respondent was working as conductor with the petitioner - Corporation and he has suffered cardiac problems while he was on duty and thereafter, he was hospitalized at Government Hospital, Gadag. 2.2. The Medical Board found that the respondent is unable do heavy work and accordingly opined that the Petitioner - Corporation may allocate table work to the respondent-workman. 2.3. In this regard, the petitioner-Corporation, without considering the opinion given by the Medical Board, passed the order dated 17.03.2003 and ordered for compulsory retirement from the service. 2.4. Being aggrieved by the same, the respondent workman has filed KID No.116/2003 before the Principal Labour Court, Hubballi, seeking his reinstatement in service with full backwages. 2.5. The Labour Court by order dated 13.08.2003, allowed the application filed by the respondent - workman and as such, directed the petitioner-Corporation to reinstate within two months with backwages. 2.6. In pursuance of the order made by the Labour Court, the petitioner is entitled for re-instatement as well as the salary for the period from 13.08.2003 till the payment of the backwages with interest. 2.7. The petitioner-Corporation having not considered the same, the respondent has filed an application in Application No.6/2013 against the petitioner-Corporation. 2.8. The said application was resisted by the Corporation. 2.9. In order to establish their case, respondent workman was examined himself as AW-1 and produced five documents and the same were marked as Exs. A.1 to A.5. The respondent-Corporation has examined its Officer as RW1 and produced two documents and the same were marked as Exs. R1 and R2. 2.10. The Labour Court after considering the material on record, by order dated 18.11.2015, allowed the application and directed the petitioner - Corporation to pay a sum of Rs.12,27,535/- within six months from the date of the order. 2.11. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Corporation - respondent therein has presented this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioner - Corporation and Sri. K. L.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent - workman. 4. Sri. 2.11. Feeling aggrieved by the same, the Corporation - respondent therein has presented this writ petition. 3. I have heard Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel for the petitioner - Corporation and Sri. K. L.Patil, learned counsel for the respondent - workman. 4. Sri. Shivakumar S. Badawadagi, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner-Corporation contended that the impugned order passed by the Labour Court is liable to be set aside on the ground that the Labour Court has not considered the factual aspects that the respondent - Corporation has filed Civil Appeal No.11283-284/2009 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and till the consideration of the said appeal, which is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Labour Court is not justified in passing the impugned order and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be interfered with in this writ petition. 5. Per contra, Sri. S. A. Sondur for Sri. K. L. Patil, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - workman sought to justify the impugned order. 6. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, careful consideration of the writ papers would indicate that, the respondent herein has approached the Labour Court, Hubballi in KID No.116/2003 seeking reinstatement of his services, as the petitioner - Corporation instead of complying with the opinion made by the Medical Board, passed the order of compulsory retirement on 17.03.2003 and the order passed in KID No.116/2003 has been, ultimately, confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.11283-284/2009. 7. In that view of the matter, I do not find any merit in the submission made by learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. Writ petition is dismissed as devoid of merits.