BOMBAY VEGETABLE MARKETS UNPROTECTED LABOUR BOARD FOR GREATER Vs. MUMBAI AGRICULTURE PRODUCE MARKET COMMITTEE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.Bukhari, the learned counsel for the Petitioner.

(2.) IN this contempt petition, the grievance of the Petitioner is that the Respondents no.1 and 2 have committed contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying order of this Court passed on 11.4.96 in so far as they failed to recover arrears of D.A. from traders/commission agents for the period from December, 91 to April, 96 and have also failed to pay it over to the concerned mapadi workers. The Petitioner also prays in this contempt petition that the Respondents no.1 and 2 have committed contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying order of this Court dated 11.4.96 in Writ Petition No.1768 of 95 and in Notice of Motion No.341 of 1996 in W.P. 1768/95 dated 10/1/1998 in so far as they have failed to collect weighing charges, DA arrears from each trader/commission agent every week and have also failed to pay it over for payment to the concerned mapadis and to take appropriate action against Respondents No.1 and 2.

(3.) AS regards prayer (a) made in this contempt petition, it may be observed that on 11.4.96 the Division Bench of this Court directed the original writ Petitioner viz. The Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Committee to first recover weighing charges and DA from traders and pay it over to the concerned workers within 15 days from that date and thereafter the grievance of the Petitioner would be heard. Accordingly, the matter was ordered to be Stand Over to 25th April, 1996. Mr.Bukhari, the learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that pursuant to the order passed by this Court on 11.4.96 some payment was made by original writ petitioner but the said payment was not in full compliance of the order passed by Division Bench on 11.4.1996. However, there is no dispute that on 11th June, 1996 on behalf of the original writ petitioner viz. The Bombay Agriculture Produce Market Committee and Anr. the learned Advocate-General stated before the Division Bench that mapadis are not the employees of the market committee and, therefore, original writ petitioners prayed for withdrawal of the writ petition. Permission was granted and writ petition was accordingly disposed of as withdrawn. In this view of the matter, prayer (a) made by the Petitioner that the Respondents No.1 and 2 be committed to 'civil contempt' for wilfully disobeying order dated 11.4.96 cannot be accepted.