: 1 : IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.60 OF 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.60 OF 2005 CONTEMPT PETITION NO.60 OF 2005 Gitesh Gaikwad and others ).. Petitioners Versus University of Mumbai and others ).. Respondents Mr.M.Mistry i/b.M/s.M.P.Vashi & Associates for the Petitioners. Mr.P.M.Palshikar for Respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr.A.H.Palekar, A.G.P. for Respondent No.4. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. CORAM: SMT.NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATED: 12TH AUGUST 2005 DATED: 12TH AUGUST 2005 DATED: 12TH AUGUST 2005 P.C.: P.C.: P.C.: . The Petitioners have complained that there is a contempt committed by the Respondents of the order dated 7th September 2004 of the College Tribunal passed in Appeal Nos.56, 57 and 58 of 2003. Paragraph 15 of the College Tribunal’s order reads thus :- "15. In the result, all the three appeals are partly allowed. The orders dated 6.10.2003 terminating the services of the appellants are hereby set aside and the respondents are directed to reinstate the appellants in service as before and pay their wages and give other benefits if any as per the rules. The respondent shall also pay the costs of the appeals which are quantified at Rs.2,000/- per appellant. On the request of Ms.Vaishali : 2 : Baviskar, the operation of this order is stayed for six weeks from today." 2. Admittedly, the Petitioners were employed as temporary employees prior to the order of the College Tribunal. The Petitioners agree that although they have received letters directing them to report for duty, they were informed by these letters that they would be employed only for a temporary period of three months. In these circumstances, the Petitioners have not joined duty. However, the Petitioners now agree to join duty as directed in the letters issued by the University without prejudice to their rights and contentions that they are permanent workmen and to take requisite action to agitate this grievance. 3. Contempt Petition disposed of.