1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY O. O. C. J. CONTEMPT PETITION NO.59 OF 2008 IN NOTICE OF MOTION NO.783 OF 2008 IN APPEAL NO.487 OF 2007 IN REVIEW PETITION NO.100 OF 2006 IN WRIT PETITION NO.171 OF 1999 Anand Shivram Samant. ...Petitioner. Vs. M/s.Kansai Nerolac Pints Ltd. & Ors. ...Respondents. .... Mr.Devmani Shukla i/b. Mr.Bhavesh Parmar for the Petitioner. Mr.J.P. Cama, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sanjay Udeshi for Respondent No. 1. ..... CORAM : DR.D.Y.CHANDRACHUD, J. September 24, 2009. P.C. On 27th August 2009, this Court had directed a notice to show cause to be issued to the Respondents to explain as to why action should not be initiated against them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The notice was returnable on 30th September 2009 and the Second, Third and Fourth Respondents were 2 directed to remain present personally before the Court at the hearing of the Petition. In the Contempt Petition a breach was alleged of the direction issued by the Division Bench in its orders dated 18th December 2007 and 3rd March 2008. 2. In the order of the Court dated 18th December 2007, the Court recorded the statement of the Management that, the Petitioner would be reinstated at the factory situate at Lote Parshuram and that on his part, the Petitioner gave up his claim for back wages, other than what was paid. The management stated before the Court that the Petitioner would be entitled to continuity of service and would be reinstated as clerk with effect from 1st December 2008. In a subsequent order dated 3rd March 2008, passed on a Notice of Motion, the Division Bench took on record the affidavit of the Management, which stated that the workman would be treated as a clerk for the purposes of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and that his age of retirement would be 60 years. The Division Bench clarified that the workman will be a clerk for the purposes of continuity in service and for all other benefits as a clerk except for back wages. 3 3. The grievance of the Petitioner was that the direction issued by the Division Bench had not been complied with since that he had been reinstated in a scale higher than that to which he was entitled to as a clerk, as a result of which he has been deprived of all the benefits to which he would have been entitled to in his position of clerk. 4, Upon issuance of the notice to show cause, the proceedings were mentioned before this Court on 14th September 2009 by Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents with notice to Counsel for the Petitioner. The Court was informed that the Respondents would make an earnest effort to resolve the dispute amicably by meeting the grievance of the Petitioner in its entirety. Today, the Contempt Petition has been placed on board for taking on the record Consent Terms which have been arrived at between the Petitioner and the Respondents. The Consent Terms have been signed by the Petitioner, by the authorised representative of the Respondents and by the Advocates for the parties. The Court has been informed that in view of the Consent Terms that have been 4 arrived at between the parties, the grievance of the Petitioner has been fully met and that the Petitioner has no subsisting grievance in regard to compliance with the orders dated 18th December 2007 and 3rd March 2008 passed by the Division Bench. The Consent Terms are taken on record and marked “X”. Since the Respondents have now taken steps to remedy the grievance of the Petitioner and to comply with the orders of the Court, it is not expedient to pursue the contempt jurisdiction any further. The Contempt Petition is disposed of and the notice to show cause shall stand discharged. The assurance of the Respondents that they shall comply with the agreement which has been arrived at between the parties which is reflected in the Consent Terms, is accepted. 5. Mr.Sanjay Udeshi, Learned Advocate states that he has instructions to appear on behalf of all the Respondents and that he will file Vakalatnama during the course of the day. .....