1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, APPELLATE SIDE NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 131 OF 2009 IN W. P. NO. 581 of 2006 Ram Sharan Kanojia Vs. Dahade & Another Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court orders or directions and Registrar's orders Court's or Judge's orders Shri S. A. Kalbande Adv for petitioner. Shri R. B. Puranik Adv for respondent-1. Shri M. R. Pillai Adv for respondent-2. CORAM: C. L. PANGARKAR J. Dated: 13 th NOVEMBER, 2009. Heard. This petition has been filed for taking action of contempt against respondents 1 and 2. On 12.01.2007 this Court has passed an order in Writ Petition no. 581 of 2006. While the said order was passed, the learned counsel for the respondent no. 2 therein had made a statement that the respondent No.2 would allot the work to the petitioners therein that is present petitioners as and when the work will be available with the respondent No.2. It was agreed that the 2 work would be provided as directed by respondent No.1 therein to respondent No.2. This order was passed on 12.01.2007. The contents of the application for contempt go to show that the respondent no.1 herein is not providing any work to the petitioners and instead of providing work to the petitioners the work is being provided to unregistered Mathadi workers. Names of the said workers to whom the work is allegedly provided are given out in the petition. Main grievance therefore of the petitioners appears that respondent No.1 herein is not providing the work of unloading to the petitioners . Respondent No.1 has filed a statement stating therein that as and when work would be available the same will be provided to the petitioners and the contention of the petitioners that respondent No.1 has engaged 28 unregistered workers is incorrect and totally false. It is also the contention that there is no breach of the undertaking given by the respondent No.1 before the Court while disposing of the Writ Petition. Respondent No.2 has filed before this Court a pursis. By the said pursis the respondent No.2 has stated that respondent No.2 had visited the factory and he found that the work was being provided to the Mathadi workers belonging to Buddha Ram Halba 3 Group. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents. The petitioners counsel submits that the work of unloading is not being provided to the petitioners and therefore no sufficient wages can be claimed by the petitioners and that is causing loss to them. After having gone through the order passed by the Court it is apparent that there was undertaking by the respondent no.1 herein that they would provide work to the petitioners as and when it is available. It is not disputed by the petitioners that work is being provided to them. What is their contention is that the work of unloading is not being provided. There is no proof on record to show that work of unloading is not being provided to the petitioners. On the other hand pursis filed by the respondent No.2 clearly goes to show that respondent No.1 has been providing the work to the petitioners and it goes also to show as to for how many days in a month the employees of the petitioners have worked in the said factory and for how many days the work was allotted to them. This goes to show that their contention that no work is being provided is not correct. 4 Counsel for the respondent No.1 brings to my notice that allegations made in the petition that 28 outside workers have been inducted is patently incorrect and he brings to my notice the documents filed by the present petitioner on record itself. List of the workers along with the said additional rejoinder also goes to show that it is a list in respect of Prabhu Steel and Hariyana Rolling Mill. The list does not make it clear as to how many of them were with Prabhu Steel and how many of them were working with Hariyana Rolling Mill. In the absence of such information it cannot be said that all those workers are engaged by respondent No.1 who are unregistered workers. In the circumstances I do not find that respondent No. 1 has committed any breach of undertaking given before the Court. Notice of contempt is therefore dropped. Proceedings are filed. JUDGE svk 5 6 7