1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR CONTEMPT PETITION NO.233 OF 2010 IN CONTEMPT PETITI ON NO.134 OF 2002 (D) IN WRIT PETITION NO.4214 OF 2001 (D) Deepak s/o Kisan Meshram VERSUS Nirwan s/o Bansod and others ........................................................................................................................................... Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's order of directions and Registrar's orders ........................................................................................................................................... Shri S.P.Kshirsagar, Counsel for the Petitioner. Shri R.D.Raskar, Counsel for the R-1 &2. Shri A.R.Ingole, Counsel for the R-3. Smt. Rashi Deshpande, AGP for R-4. CORAM : R. K.DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 22. JUNE, 2011. By judgment and order dated 25.10.2001, the School Tribunal, Nagpur, directed reinstatement of the petitioner with continuity in service and payment of full back wages. The writ petition filed by the Management was dismissed. .....2/- 2 Hence, the said judgment and order attained finality. The petitioner filed Contempt Petition No.134 of 2002 complaining willful disobedience of the said judgment and order dated 25.10.2010, passed by the School Tribunal. The said contempt petition was dismissed, holding that the petitioner has adequate remedy of approaching the appropriate authority for executing the order. The petitioner accordingly filed Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2005, invoking the jurisdiction of the School Tribunal under Section 13 of the Maharashtra Employees of Private Schools (Conditions of Service) Act, 1977. The Tribunal passed an order directing the respondents to pay an amount of Rs.1,83,134/- to the petitioner and if the Management fails to pay the said amount, the Education Officer shall direct to deducted the amount of back wages from the non-salary grants due and payable to the Management in future. The Tribunal has further passed an order dated 17.8.2005 granting liberty to the petitioner to take necessary steps by filing the proceedings for attachment of the property and prosecution of the .....3/- 3 respondents. The aforesaid order dated 17.8.2005 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2005 is the subject matter of Writ Petition No.5833 of 2005 filed by the Management. On 31.3.2006, Rule has been granted in the said writ petition and except Clause-3 of the order passed by the School Tribunal. The stay was granted to the effect and operation of the rest of the Clauses of the order passed by the School Tribunal. As a result, it was permissible for the Education Officer to deduct the amount of back wages payable to the petitioner from the non-salary grants due and payable to the respondents. The petitioner had filed Contempt Petition No.245 of 2005 before this Court complaining about willful disobedience of the order dated 17.8.2005 passed in Miscellaneous Application No.6 of 2005. The said contempt petition was dismissed in default on 13.11.2009. Miscellaneous Civil Application No.274 of 2010 for restoration of that contempt petition was allowed to be withdrawn, at the request of the petitioner with liberty to file a fresh contempt petition. .....4/- 4 Accordingly, this contempt petition has been filed. In response to this contempt petition, an affidavit has been filed by the respondent no.4-the Education Officer on 10.2.2011 in which a categorical statement has been made that the respondents have deducted the amount of Rs.1,12,706/- from the non-salary grants of the School and it has been paid to the petitioner. It is the further statement made on affidavit that after 31.3.2004 non-salary grants are not admissible to the School. As a result, it seems that the balance amount due and payable to the petitioner comes to Rs.30,433/- only. The School Tribunal has already passed an order on 17.8.2005 in Miscellaneous Civil Application No.6 of 2005 granting liberty to the petitioner to initiate the proceedings for attachment of the property belonging to the respondents and for institution of the criminal prosecution against the office bearers under Section 13 of the MEPS Act. As stated earlier in Writ Petition No.5833 of 2005, that part of the order has been stayed. In view of aforesaid events, the present contempt petition, cannot be proceeded further. .....5/- 5 Hence, the proceedings are dropped. It made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to get the stay order passed in Writ Petition No.5833 of 2005 vacated or to apply for hearing of the said writ petition. It shall be open for the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings including that of contempt if it is permissible in law after the decision in the said writ petition. JUDGE BrWankhede ...../-