[1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE CONTEMPT PETITION NO.178 OF 2003 IN CONTEMPT PETITION NO.0351 OF 2000 IN WRIT PETITION NO.1794 OF 2000 Mrs. Pratima Anant Sathe .... Petitioner Vs. Anil Khekane and others .... Respondents Shri Niranjan Bhatia i/b M/s. Pandya & Co. for the Petitioner. Ms Anjali N. Helekar for the Respondent No.1. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. DATED: DATED: DATED: SEPTEMBER 24, 2004 P.C: P.C: P.C: Heard. The grievance of the petitioner is that inspite of specific direction by the School Tribunal by its order dated 20-10-1999 for reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and the said order being not interfered with by the High Court as well as by the Supreme Court, the respondents have not paid the entire amount of the back wages as well as inspite of the petitioner being a teacher necessarily meant to teach Marathi subject, the petitioner has been asked to teach Hindi subject. As regards the grievance relating to dispute in arrears of amount, the petitioner has alternative efficacious remedy in the form of execution, [2] besides that such a dispute cannot be decided in contempt proceedings. As regards the grievance relating to distribution of the workload in Hindi and Marathi subjects with reference to the petitioner, it is entirely for the management to take appropriate decision in that regard and if there is any grievance in that respect, the petitioner can certainly approach the competent authority. The grievance in that respect sought to be made is beyond the scope of the order which was passed by the Tribunal. For the reasons stated above, there is no case for proceeding against the respondents for contempt of Court. Hence the petition is rejected. Certified copy expedited. ------