(-1-) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 422 OF 1999 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 422 OF 1999 CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 422 OF 1999 Mr. Najmus-Shaquib Abdul Aziz Shaikh ...Petitioner Versus Mrs. Manisha Varma, Chief Exectuve Officer, Z.P. & Anr. ...Respondents ..... Mr. S.G. Kudle, counsel for Petitioner Mr. S.K. Chincholikar, counsel for Respondent. ..... CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. B. H. MARLAPALLE, J. DATED: 20TH JANUARY, 2005 DATED: 20TH JANUARY, 2005 DATED: 20TH JANUARY, 2005 P.C.:- P.C.:- P.C.:- 1. Heard Mr. Kudle, the learned counsel for the petitioner. It appears that the respondents did not act in obedience of the order passed by the Labour Court in Complaint (ULP) No. 393 of 1998. If that be so, the petitioner has the remedy under Section 48 M.R.T.U.and P.U.L.P. Act, 1971 and when a special statute under which the petitioner had sought relief by filing the complaint of Unfair Labour Practice has prescribed a separate remedy, the remedy available under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 need not be invoked. 2. Hence, the Contempt Petition is disposed of with liberty to approach appropriate forum as per law. (-2-)