1 FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No. IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR Contempt Petition No. 142/2007 IN Writ Petition No. 5382/2004 (Raju Nagosa Kalhane VERSUS Sanjay Rambhau Wankhede & 2 others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- Mr. N.R. Saboo, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. S.S. Loney, counsel for the R-1 & 2. Mr. Aditya Deshpande, counsel for the R-3. CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK, J. DATE : APRIL 16, 2008. Heard. It is alleged by the petitioner that the respondents have committed contempt of Court by not obeying the order passed by the learned single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.5382/2004 on 09.11.2004 and 08.01.2007. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that though the Labour Court had directed the respondents to continue the petitioner in service, the Industrial Court reversed the said order. The learned single Judge of this Court in Writ petition No.5382/2004 had granted ad-interim stay in terms of prayer clause (iii) by which the order passed by the Industrial Court was stayed. Similarly, on 08.01.2007, an order was passed in 2 Writ Petition No.5382/2004 continuing the ad- interim order passed by the Court on 09.11.2004. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioner that in spite of the two orders passed by this Court in Writ Petition No.5382/2004, the petitioner was not permitted to join his duties. Shri Loney, the learned counsel for the respondents, disputes the aforesaid position and it is submitted on behalf of the respondent on an affidavit that the petitioner was himself at fault and he was deliberately not joining the duty in spite of the orders of the High Court in Writ Petition No.5382/2004. It appears that there is a serious dispute between the parties about the intention and endeavour of the petitioner to join the duties and the refusal by the management to permit the petitioner to join the duties. When this matter came up before this Court on 05.03.2008, this Court directed the petitioner to report on duty on 18.03.2008 with the consent of parties. It is submitted on behalf of the respondents that in stead of approaching the respondent on 18.03.2008 for joining the duties, the petitioner approached the respondent on 14.03.2008 and the respondents readily permitted the petitioner to join the duties on 14.03.2008 itself. Some 3 grievance is made by the petitioner about further action on the part of the respondent in not accepting the applications of the petitioner for grant of leave. Shri Loney, the learned counsel for the respondents disputes this position and makes a statement on behalf of the respondents that the respondents would permit the petitioner to perform his duties and to work on the post of peon till the Writ Petition No.5382/2004 is finally decided by this Court. Shri Loney, the learned counsel for the respondents, makes a statement that the compliance report about the petitioner joining his service on 14.03.2008 would be duly dispatched to the Social Welfare Officer as early as possible. In view of the aforesaid statement and in view of the fact that the petitioner has now joined his duties since 14.03.2008, it is necessary in the interest of justice to drop the contempt proceedings filed by the petitioner against the respondents. Since the petitioner is already working on the post of peon since 14.03.2008 and since the counsel for the respondents has made a solemn statement on behalf of the respondents that the respondents are forever willing to permit 4 the petitioner to work on the post of peon, the contempt petition is disposed of. JUDGE APTE