1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 169 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 2284 2007 Ahmednagar Zilla Shetmajoor Union ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. M.M. Nerlekar, advocate h/f Mr. S.T. Shelke, for the petitioner Mr. V.H. Dighe, A.G.P. for respondents ..... CORAM: S. S. SHINDE, J. DATED: 25TH AUGUST, 2010 PER COURT:- 1 This petition is filed with a grievance that the order dated 14.6.2007 passed in writ petition No. 2284 of 2007 is not complied with by the respondents. 2 It appears from the memo of contempt petition that the contempt petition is filed on 2.5.2008. During pendency of the contempt petition, in pursuance to the order dated 14.6.2009, passed by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court in writ petition, the petitioner and and the 2 original respondent No.5 in writ petition viz. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth were heard by the Assistant Labour Commissioner on 9.3.2010 and 17.3.2010. It is an admitted position that the representatives of the petitioner union was heard by the Assistant Labour Commissioner and also the petition was treated as representation, as observed by this Court in its order dated 14.6.2007. 3 After hearing the petitioner as well as respondent No.5 in writ petition No. 2284 of 2007, the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Ahmednagar after satisfying himself and after recording the satisfaction of the respective parties, has disposed of the representation. The original respondent No.5 in writ petition i.e. Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth has accordingly issued a Circular dated 6.2.2010, thereby making it clear that provisions of Minimum Wages Act, 1948 would be made applicable to all daily wagers and seasonal workers, who works on contract basis. It is further stated in the said circular that as per the notification dated 13.8.2009 issued by respondent No.1, the minimum wages have been increased and as per the said notification it is binding on all concerned to implement the provisions of Minimum Wages Act. The said circular further mentions that as per the notification dated 13.8.2009 all concerned should pay minimum wages to the daily wagers working on contract basis and further to direct all concerned to follow the provisions of Minimum Wages Act scrupulously. 3 5 In the light of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 and the circular issued by Mahatma Phule Krishi Vidyapeeth dated 6.2.2010, it appears that the statement made before the Division Bench of this Court on 14.6.2007 by the learned A.G.P. has been complied with. For ready reference, the relevant portion of the order of this Court dated 14.6.2007 reads thus:- "Learned counsel appearing for the respondents states that they would treat this writ petition as representation of the petitioner and would pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. He further states that the authorities would hear respondent No.5 as well as the petitioner before passing the orders. We make it clear that we are expressing no opinion as to whether the respondent No.5 has or has not violated the provisions of the Minimum Wages Act. It will be for the competent authority to decide the issue.” 6 On perusal of the statement made before this Court on 14.6.2007, the circular issued by the original respondent No.5 and the affidavit filed by the respondent No.4, it clearly reveals that there is no any attempt on the part of the respondent authorities to deviate from the statement made before this court by the learned A.G.P. On the contrary, on perusal of the affidavit in reply filed on behalf of the respondent No.4 and the circular issued by original respondent No.5, it clearly appears that the order passed in writ petition No. 2284 of 2007 4 dated 14.6.2007 has been complied with. Therefore, viewed from any angle, in my view, there is no contempt committed within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 7 In the result, the contempt petition fails and the same stands dismissed summarily with no order as to costs. The contempt notice issued by this Court stands discharged. ( S. S. SHINDE. J.) rlj/