1 38 cp 410.08.doc IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION srk CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 410 OF 2008 Yogendra Giriraj Singh & Ors. ..Petitioners. v/s. Smt. Malini Sharma & Ors. ..Respondents. Ms. Anjali Helekar for the Petitioners. Mr. Akhilesh S.Dubey a/w Mr. A.A.Khan & Mr. Rahul Sharma i/b M/s M.Tripathi & Co. for the Respondent no.2. CORAM : J.H.BHATIA, J. DATE : 2ND SEPTEMBER, 2010. P.C. 1 Heard. 2 By an order dated 3rd October, 2002 in Writ Petition No.6990 of 1998, Division Bench of this Court had directed the Respondent Uttar Pradesh Rajkiya Nirman Nigam Ltd. that the workers will continue to be provided work and wages in the manner in which they were provided work and wages earlier. By office order dated 01.09.2008, the Petitioners were transferred to different places of work and in the order it was clearly mentioned 2 38 cp 410.08.doc that as per the order of the High Court, they shall be paid the salaries, wages and allowances as per the situation in existence, as they were employed through Uttar Pradesh Rajakiya Nirman Nigam Ltd, Pune, Maharashtra through PRW (Piece Rated Work). From the prayer in the Contempt Petition it appears that the Petitioners are mainly aggrieved by the transfer order. The learned counsel for the Petitioners contended that they were the regular employees and they were not working on Piece Rated Work Scheme. Whether they were working on regular basis or Piece Rated Work Scheme cannot be decided in the Contempt Petition. There was no order in the Writ Petition that the Petitioners should be provided work at the same place where they were working earlier and that they should never be transferred. Therefore, I find no material to hold that any contempt of the order of this court has been committed. 3 Therefore, Contempt Petition stands disposed of. The Petitioners shall have liberty to approach the appropriate court for decision as to whether they were working on regular basis or piece rated work scheme. [ J.H.BHATIA, J. ]