cp69.11 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 69 OF 2011 Shaikh Kareem s/o Shaikh Raheem ...Petitioner Versus The State of Maharashtra and others ...Respondents ..... Mr. Subhash Mundhe h/f Eknath G. Irale, advocate for the petitioner Mr. S.D. Kaldate, A.G.P. for respondent No.1 Ms. Manjusha Ambekar h/f Mrs. Ranjana Reddy, advocate for R. 2 and 3. ..... CORAM: R.M. BORDE, J. DATED: 5TH APRIL, 2011 PER COURT:- 1 The petitioner is alleging non compliance of order passed by this court on 22.2.2007 in writ petition No. 3685 of 1999. This court while disposing of writ petition, has directed the employer-respondent herein to implement the order passed by the labour Court within a period of eight weeks from the date of order. 2 The petitioner was engaged as casual labour prior to his alleged oral termination. He has completed 240 days of service and it was alleged that his employer had discontinued his services on oral instructions. The Labour Court while disposing of complaint filed by cp69.11 -2- petitioner directed the employer to reinstate the petitioner on same terms and conditions, prevailing prior to alleged oral termination. This court confirmed the order passed by the Labour Court. 3 An affidavit in reply has been presented by the respondents wherein it is stated that the order passed by the Labour court is complied with in its letter and spirit. It is also made clear in the affidavit in reply that the petitioner is transferred to Aurangabad and since 3.11.2008 the petitioner is given benefit of time scale. In this view of the matter, I do not find any intentional violation of order passed by the Labour Court or directions issued by this court while disposing of writ petition, at the hands of the respondents-employer. Contempt petition is devoid of substance and same stands rejected. ( R.M. BORDE. J.) rlj/