1 cp416.sxw ssp IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.416 OF 2008 Shankar Hanumant Pawar ...Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors. ...Respondents Mr.Ashok B. Tajane for the petitioner Mr.A.S.Rao for respondent nos. 2 and 3 Mr.A.I.Patel, A.G.P. for the respondent no.1 CORAM :A.S.OKA,J. DATE : NOVEMBER 19,2010 P.C. 1 Heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the contemnors. The breach alleged is of following part of the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court : a) The petitioner shall within a period of four weeks from today file before the Commissioner of Corporation-respondent the affidavit indicating whether he was gainfully employed or not during the aforesaid period. The Commissioner shall hold enquiry and make an order as to what is the amount of back wages to which the petitioner is entitled. That order shall be made by the Commissioner within a period of 8 weeks from the date of submission of the affidavit as aforesaid by the petitioner and the payment of back wages that may be found payable to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of order. 2 cp416.sxw b) In case, the order is adverse to the interest of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be at liberty to adopt appropriate remedies that may be available to him in law. 2 The learned counsel for the contemnors states that it is accepted that the petitioner was not gainfully employed and therefore, the petitioner has been paid amounts of Rs.7,57,000/- and Rs.1,29,000/- by way of back wages. 3 The learned counsel for the petitioner states that there is no order passed in terms of the order of the Division Bench and some more amount is payable to the petitioner towards back wages as well as retirement benefits. 4 There was no occasion to hold an enquiry as to whether the petitioner was gainfully employed as the contemnors have accepted that the petitioner was not gainfully employed during the relevant period. Substantial amount has been paid to the petitioner. If according to the petitioner some more amount is payable, it is obvious that the petitioner will have to adopt appropriate proceedings for recovery of the said amount. As the substantial compliance has been made with the order of this Court, no case is made out for initiating action under the Contempt of Courts Act,1971. Petition is disposed of by keeping the remedy of the petitioner open. JUDGE