1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 292 OF 2008 Abhimanyu Arjun Patil ....Petitioner. Versus Shri. Pukhraj deepchand Pagariya and another ....Respondents. Shri. K.C. Sant, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. T.K. Prabhakaran, Advocate for the respondents. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 26th November, 2009 PER COURT : 1. Heard Shri. Sant, the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience of the order dated 10th of December 2007, passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No. 7125 of 2007. By this order, the learned Single Judge considered the question of granting interim relief to the employer and passed an order, relevant portion of which is contained in para 4 of the said order, is reproduced below :- 2 "Interim stay to the impugned judgments and orders in so far as payment of back wages is concerned on condition that the respondent/employee is permitted to join services within a period of two weeks from today." Shri. Sant, the learned counsel contends that the petitioner immediately on 10th of December 2007 approached to the employer for joining his duties. Similarly, thereafter also the petitioner has been approached the employer for permitting him to join the duties. However, he has not been permitted to join the duties. In view of this, he contends that there is willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, which grants interim relief, subject to the employer permitting the petitioner employee to join the service within a period of two weeks. 3. The order passed by this Court reproduced above is conditional one and if the employer does not permit the petitioner to join the duties, then there is no interim order passed by this Court. As a result, the order dated 30.9.2006 passed by the Labour Court at Jalgaon in complaint ULP No. 196/2000, which is confirmed in Civil Revision Application No. 27/2006 by the Industrial Court at Jalgaon on 17.9.2009, became executable. The petitioner has got remedy under section 48 of the MRTU and PULP Act to approach the Labour Court for making the appropriate complaint. The willful disobedience of the order passed by the Labour Court amount to an offence and hence, the petitioner is at liberty to file such proceedings. In view of this provision, I do not find that it is a case 3 for taking any action for contempt. Hence, the contempt petition is dismissed, leaving open to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court under section 48 of the said Act or to adopt any such other remedies as are available to him in law. It is made clear that the dismissal of this contempt petition does not come in the way of the petitioner for prosecuting such other reliefs. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp292.08