Bombay High Court
Pramod Ganpatrao Pohare vs Ranjeetsingh Deol I.A.S. Vice ... on 19 April, 2022
Bench: Manish Pitale
1/3 907-cp-357-19
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 357 OF 2019
IN
WRIT PETITION NO. 2424 OF 2019
Pramod Ganpatrao Pohare -- Petitioner
Vs.
Managing Director, Mumbai Metro Rail -- Respondents
Corporation and another
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders
appearances, Court's orders of directions
and Registrar's orders
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -- -
Mr. Bhushan Dafle, Advocate for Petitioner
Mr. S.R. Charpe, Advocate for Respondent No.1
Mr. V.H. Kedar, Advocate for Respondent No.2
CORAM : MANISH PITALE, J.
DATE : 19th APRIL, 2022
By this contempt petition, the petitioner claims that
the respondents / alleged contemnors have violated
directions of the Labour Court, as confirmed upto this
Court. It is contended that specific directions given by this
Court in the order dated 02/07/2019 in Writ Petition
No.2424/2019, have not been complied with.
MP Deshpande
2/3 907-cp-357-19
2. A perusal of the record shows that the Labour Court by
its judgment and order held in favour of the petitioner and
directed his reinstatement with payment of back-wages. The
said order is confirmed upto this Court by dismissal of the
writ petition. In fact, while dismissing the writ petition, this
Court gave specific directions to the respondents to deposit
amounts concerning back-wages before this Court and the
Labour Court. The documents on record show that the
respondents indeed deposited the said amounts, which were
also withdrawn by the petitioner.
3. At this stage, the learned counsel appearing for the
petitioner submits that the direction of reinstatement was
not complied with. A statement was made before this Court
on 20/01/2022, on behalf of the respondents that the
petitioner was in fact reinstated as far back on 15/03/2011,
after which he was paid regular salary and he was even
transferred from one place to other, in the context of which
he had initiated certain litigation. This Court gave directions
to the respondents to place on record documents with regard
to said contention. Such documents are placed on record.
This Court has perused the documents filed on record,
which support the assertion made on behalf of the
respondents that the petitioner was indeed reinstated and
thereafter paid regular salary. He was transferred from one
MP Deshpande
3/3 907-cp-357-19
place to other in the establishment of the respondent and
with regard to the same also necessary payments were made.
It appears that thereafter there has been further litigation
between the parties, but, that necessarily concerns a fresh
cause of action with which the present writ petition has no
concern.
4. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not
convince this Court that action needs to be taken against the
respondents for wilful violation of the directions of this
Court and those of the Courts below. In fact, this Court has
found substantial compliance on the part of the respondents.
5. In view of above, it is found that this contempt
petition is without any merit and, therefore, it is dismissed.
JUDGE
Digitally signed by:MILIND
P DESHPANDE
Signing Date:20.04.2022
10:28
MP Deshpande
