1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 337 OF 2008 Smt. Sayarabano Tabibkhan, R/o. C/o. Tabib Khan Sakedada Khan, Nimbhora (Bk), Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon. ....Petitioner. Versus Ishwardas Ramdas Chaudhary, R/o. Nimbhora (Bk), Tq. Raver, Dist. Jalgaon and others ....Respondents. Shri. S.P. Brahme, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. P.R. Katneshwarkar, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 1 & 2. Shri. K.S. Patil, A.G.P. for respondent No. 3. CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 24th November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. This contempt petition complains about willful disobedience of the order dated 30.8.2007, passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 3226/2007. Para 5 of the said order, which is relevant for the purpose of present case, is reproduced below :- "5. By way of interim relief, payment of back wages awarded by the learned School Tribunal is 2 stayed, on the condition that the petitioner / management shall deposit fifty per cent amount of the arrears of back wages, within ten weeks from today. Reinstatement awarded by the Tribunal is not stayed. Stay to the backwages is conditional, meaning thereby that in case of failure on the part of the petitioners in depositing the fifty per cent of the arrears amount, in this Court, the said stay shall stand vacated. " 2. Shri. Brahme, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has urged that the appeal filed by the petitioner, challenging her termination as an Assistant Teacher, has been allowed by the School Tribunal by setting aside the termination and direction of reinstatement with backwages. This order of School Tribunal has been challenged by the Management in Writ Petition No. 3226/2007, in which aforesaid order has been passed. He further submits that this Court refused to grant stay to the reinstatement and so far as backwages were concerned, this Court granted stay to the backwages, subject to deposit of 50% of amount of arrears of backwages by the Management within 10 weeks. He submits that the petitioner has neither been reinstated in the service nor been paid with any backwages and therefore, this contempt petition has been filed. The Management has, thus, willfully disobeyed the order passed by the Tribunal, which this Court has refused to stay. 3. As against this, the learned counsel Shri. Katneshwarkar, appearing for respondent Nos. 1 and 2, relied upon two judgments of this Court reported in (1) 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 249, Mohammad Salam 3 Anamul Haque Vs. S.A. Azmi and others and (2) 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 261, Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh and another Vs. S.A. Ghode and others. He has urged that the basic complaint in this contempt petition is about willful disobedience of the order passed by the School Tribunal. According to him, this Court has not passed any order, but has simply refused to grant interim relief of stay to the order passed by the School Tribunal. Hence, according to him, if at all there is any contempt, the same is in respect of the order passed by the School Tribunal and as per Rule 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Condition of Services) Regulation Act, 1977, (hereinafter referred to as "the said Act"), the petitioner has an alternate and efficacious remedy to approach the Tribunal for execution of the order in the manner prescribed therein. Shri. Brahme, the learned counsel, however, refutes the said contention by urging that the remedy before the School Tribunal is not efficacious, particularly when the writ petition is pending before this Court and it is merely refusal to grant an interim relief. According to him, the Tribunal would be reluctant to proceed with the matter when the writ petition is pending before this Court. 4. After considering the rival submissions made by the parties and after going through the judgments cited supra, I am of the view that the matter is covered by the aforesaid two judgments. When the remedy to execute the orders of School Tribunal is available under section 13 of the M.E.P.S.R. Act, then this Court will be slow in exercising the contempt 4 jurisdiction. Basically, it is the willful disobedience of the order passed by the School Tribunal, which is alleged in this petition. The consequences are also provided in the order for failure to comply with the interim order. In view of this, I do not find any reason to proceed with the present matter. However, it is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to institute the proceedings under section 13 of the said Act and the Tribunal shall not be influenced by any of the observations made by this Court in this order and also by the fact that the writ petition is pending before this Court. The contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp337.08