1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Contempt Petition (Civil) No.172 of 2009 In Writ Petition No.675 of 2009 (Anil s/o Pundlik Borade and others v. Mr. O.P. Gupta, Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, and another) Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's order Shri H.D. Dangre with Shri S.M. Ghodeswar, Advocates for Petitioners. Shri V.G. Wankhede, Advocate for Respondents. Coram : R.K. Deshpande, J. Dated : 1 st September, 2010 1. This contempt petition complains about the willful disobedience or breach of the order dated 24-2-2009 passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Writ petition No.675 of 2009. The relevant portion of the order of which disobedience is complained of is contained in para 3 thereof, which is reproduced below : “3. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the Circular dated 3.12.1007 is modified by another Circular dated 6.2.2009 and the benefits, flowing from Clause 49, of 1956 Settlement are extended to all the employees 2 of the Respondent No.1-Corporation, in view of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Premlal reported in 2003 (3) Mh.L.J.1025, the grievance of the petitioners no more survives.” 2. In the affidavit dated 6-4-2010 filed on behalf of the respondents, the statements are made in paras 4 and 5 thereof, which read as under : “4. That, the employees working on regular time scale are getting the facilities as under, i) Uniform ii) Washing Allowances iii) Medical Facilities iv) Family Free Pass v) Periodical Increments. The above said facilities are also made available to the employees taken on ephemeral/temporary time scale. The said facilities are also given to the Petitioners after completion of their aggregate service of 180 days. 5. In view of the above, observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, the Respondents have given the benefits under Clause 49 of the Settlement, 1956 to the Petitioners. A copy of the chart showing that after completion of aggregate service of 180 days have given, the benefit of Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement to the Petitioners is annexed herewith as ANNEXURE – R1.” 3. Thus the stand of the respondent-Corporation is that the benefits under Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement have been extended 3 to the petitioners. 4. The learned counsel for the petitioners raises a dispute as to the benefits available to the employees in terms of Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. According to him, the benefits under Clause 49 have not been given to the petitioners and, therefore, there is a willful disobedience or breach of the order passed by this Court. 5. Perusal of para 3 of the order dated 24-2-2009 passed by this Court indicates that it nowhere specifies what benefits are available to the employees under Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioners relied upon the decision of the Full Bench of this Court in Letters Patent Appeal Nos.36, 41, 100 to 103, 106 to 109, 130, 131, 132, 134, 150, 154, 171, 172, 173 of 1999, 5 of 1997, 48, 3897 of 2000, 56 of 2001 and 117 of 2002, decided on 25-4-2003 at Nagpur (Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation, Nagpur v. Premlal s/o Khatrigajbhiye), wherein according to him, it has been held that the monetary benefits are available to the employees under Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement. However, that is not the adjudication made by this Court in Writ Petition No.675 of 2009. 7. There is a serious dispute as to what benefits are available under Clause 49 of 1956 Settlement to the petitioners. This has not been adjudicated upon. The stand of the respondent- Corporation is that the all the benefits are given to the petitioners. 8. In view of this, no case is made out for proceeding with the present contempt petition and the same is, therefore, 4 dismissed. 9. It is, however, made clear that the dismissal of this contempt petition shall not come in the way of the petitioners in prosecuting their further remedies as may be available in law for seeking implementation of the Settlement in accordance with law. Judge pdl