17-cp119-2024.doc AGK IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.119 OF 2024 Lal Bavta Hotel Aur Bakery Mazdoor Union … Petitioner V/s. The Chairman and Managing Director, The Shipping Corporation of India Limited. … Respondent Mr. Jaiprakash Sawant for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Nerlekar for the respondent. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : NOVEMBER 28, 2025 P.C.: 1. The petitioner says that the contemnor has willfully disobeyed the judgment dated 28 July 2017 in Writ Petition No. 6250 of 2011. The direction in that judgment required the contemnor to comply with the order of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal within eight weeks. The submission is that this mandate was not honored in its true spirit. 2. The record shows that the contemnor challenged the judgment before the Supreme Court. The Special Leave Petition was dismissed. The contemnor then filed a review application. The Supreme Court, while disposing of the review, granted a further period of eight weeks to comply with the CGIT order. The contemnor complied within this extended period. This part is not 1 ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Digitally signed by ATUL GANESH KULKARNI Date: 2025.11.28 14:43:13 +0530 17-cp119-2024.doc in dispute. 3. The petitioner then filed an additional affidavit. In paragraph 5 of that affidavit, the petitioner raised a fresh grievance. The petitioner says that the contemnor has not fixed the basic pay and dearness allowance of the employees as on 1 April 2011 in accordance with law. According to the petitioner, this amounts to breach of the order of this Court. 4. I have examined the order of the CGIT. The direction of the Tribunal was limited. The Tribunal required the contemnor to regularize and absorb the employees who were found medically fit and who had not crossed the age of superannuation. There is no dispute that regularization and absorption have been completed within the time granted by the Supreme Court. The present complaint concerns the legality of fixation of basic pay and dearness allowance. This issue did not form part of the original direction. 5. The law on contempt jurisdiction is clear. Contempt is not a forum to decide disputed rights. Contempt jurisdiction is invoked only when a clear and unambiguous order has been disobeyed. If the grievance relates to whether pay fixation or dearness allowance has been done in accordance with law, the matter needs adjudication on merits. Such adjudication requires examination of facts, service records, pay scales and other relevant material. This Court cannot decide those issues in contempt jurisdiction. I find that the contemnor has complied with the specific direction of regularization and absorption. The further grievance in paragraph 2 17-cp119-2024.doc 5 of the additional affidavit requires independent adjudication before a competent forum. 6. In these circumstances, while leaving the question of legality of pay fixation and dearness allowance open for the petitioner to pursue before the appropriate forum, the contempt petition is disposed of. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 3