1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 230 OF 2009 Mr. Ishwar Tukaram Kosti .....Petitioner Versus Bhima Sahkari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. .....Respondent Mr. A. B. Tajane i/b. Mr. Dnyaneshwar Deshmukh for the Petitioner. Mrs. Meena H. Doshi for the Respondent. CORAM : R. V. MORE, J. DATED : 18th JULY, 2009. P.C.: This matter was mentioned at 11.00 a.m. by Mr. Tajane, Advocate requesting for an adjournment. I specifically told him that adjournment will be granted subject to information to Mrs. Doshi who is appearing for the Respondent. Now, Mrs. Doshi appears and makes a grievance that she was not informed either by Mr. Tajane or Mr. Deshmukh after the matter was mentioned at 11.00 a.m.. She submits that on the last occasion also when the matter appeared on board on 2nd July, 2009, the Petition was mentioned behind her back and was adjourned. In the above circumstances, I heard Mrs. Doshi, learned Counsel for the Respondent on merits. 2. The Petitioner had filed complaint in the case i.e. ULP No. 402 of 1993 before the Labour Court at Sholapur under Schedule IV, Item 1 (a) (b) (d) (f) and (g) against the Respondent challenging his dismissal w.e.f. 13th October, 1993. The learned Labour Judge after hearing both the sides found that the Petitioner was in employment with Respondent as a “Seasonal Clerk” and ultimately concluded after perusing evidence on record that the 2 Petitioner deserves reinstatement as a seasonal employment in the capacity of the clerk with continuity of service of 50% back-wages. The clause III of the operative part of the order dated 16th August, 2001 reads as follows: “III. The respondents are hereby directed to cause and desist from continuing unfair labour practice by reinstating the complainant in his original post as a seasonal clerk with continuity of service and back-wages of 50% within one month from today.” 3. Mrs. Doshi, learned Counsel for the Respondent, submits that the above order passed by the Labour Court was complied with by the Respondent by reinstating the complainant in his original post as a “Seasonal Clerk” with continuity of the service and back-wages of 50% are also deposited in the Court. 4. The Petitioner, however, by filing the Contempt Petition contends that he is entitled for work during the off season. He also states that the Respondent No.1 has given off season work to similarly situated person and therefore, the Respondent No.1 is guilty of discrimination. 5. If it is the case of the Petitioner that Respondent No.1 has made discrimination in giving work to its employees, then surely Contempt Petition will not lie. The remedy of the Petitioner is somewhere else, especially when the Petitioner in the Contempt Petition does not dispute that the order of the Labour Court dated 16th August, 2001 is implemented. 6. Taking totality of the facts into consideration, I am not inclined to interfere in the Contempt Petition and the same is accordingly, dismissed. sd/- (R. V. MORE, J.)