(1.) Heard Mr. Rao, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioners. We have with the assistance of Mr. Rao and Mr. Naik, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the proposed Contemners, perused the Contempt Petition. From what has been alleged in the Contempt petition, it is apparent that the orders of the Single Judge and Division Bench though stated to be breached and violated and deliberately, the Contempt petition itself goes on to allege that the proceedings before the Division Bench ended in the statement being made that the petitioners would be reinstated. The statement was that their services have not been terminated and they would be provided the work. In paragraph 11 of the Contempt petition, the allegations are that the petitioners reported for work, but there was a farce created of taking them back on work. The work was provided at far place and away from Pune City. During the course of argument, Mr. Rao submits that the work being provided at Lavasa, does not mean that the petitioners are unwilling to join there, but they are required to spend Rs. 100/- on travel itself and per trip. Surely, when all such allegations are made and even if the original orders are substituted or modified, everything is conditional upon the work being available in Pune city and elsewhere. It is not as if the petitioners are unaware of the position that the work at site is being carried on by the alleged Contemners as contractors. Therefore, if M/s. Bajaj Auto Limited has executed any contract in favour of the Contemners at site, only then the question whether the petitioners being allowed to work and assigned duties, would arise.
(2.) In these circumstances going by the averments in the Contempt petition, it is apparent that the petitioners are attempting to seek substantive reliefs. They are seeking virtually modification of the interim arrangement. All this is impermissible in the contempt jurisdiction. We do not find any civil contempt being made out. The Contempt Petition is dismissed. No costs.