SSK/16 1 cp.551.10. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 551 OF 2010 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 9484 OF 2009 Umesh Raghunath Kale ....Petitioner Versus M/s. Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents Mr. Mayuresh Modgi, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. J. P. Cama, Sr. Counsel with Ms. Sobha Kore i/b. Mr. Haresh Mehta & Co. for respondent nos. 1 to 3. CORAM : RANJIT MORE, J. DATED : 25th MARCH, 2011. P.C.: Heard Mr. Modgi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Cama, learned senior counsel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner alleges willful breach and disobedience of the order dated 9th December, 2009 passed by a learned Single Judge in Writ Petition no.9484 of 2009. By the said order, the writ petition was admitted and interim relief in terms of prayer clause (b) was granted. Prayer Clause (b) reads as follows : SSK/16 2 cp.551.10. “Pending the hearing and final disposal of the Com. (U.L.P.) No.331 if 2009, the execution, implementation and operation of the Order dated 14th August, 2009 passed by the Member Industrial Court, Bandra at Mumbai below Exh.U-2 in Com.(U.L.P) No. 331 of 2009 be stayed and the Respondents be directed to maintain status-quo in respect of the service conditions of the Petitioner.” 3. Writ Petition No.9484 of 2009 arises out transfer order of the petitioner from Mumbai to Chandigarh. The petitioner initially challenged that transfer order by filing Com.(U.L.P.) No.331 of 2009 before Industrial Court. Same was dismissed, and thereafter, the petitioner filed the aforesaid writ petition. As stated above, this Court admitted the writ petition and interim stay was also granted in terms of prayer clause (b). Subsequently, the petitioner’s service came to be discharged by the Respondent-Company by an Order dated 4th November, 2010 on the ground of grave and serious acts committed by the petitioner against the respondents on 27th August, 2010, 26th September, 2010 and 30th October, 2010. The petitioner has challenged this termination by filing independent complaint before the Labour Court and same is pending. SSK/16 3 cp.551.10. 4. The contention of the petitioner that in view of the order passed by this Court on 9th December, 2009 in Writ Petition No.9484 of 2009, his service cannot be terminated, has no merit. The said petition pertains to petitioner’s transfer to Chandigarh from Mumbai. Therefore, the later part of the interim relief viz. direction to maintain status-quo in respect of service conditions of the petitioner does not come to the rescue of the petitioner to contend that his termination is in violation of the Order dated 9th December, 2009. 5. Mr. Modgi, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner’s service could not have been terminated without taking prior leave of the High Court. I do not find any merit in the submission. Plain reading of the interim order dated 9th December, 2009 in Writ Petition No.9484 of 2009 does not support the petitioner’s contention in this regard. No case of willful disobedience is made out much less contempt. The petition is, therefore, dismissed. (RANJIT MORE, J.)