S. P. MEHROTRA, J. ( 1 ) THE present Contempt Petition has been filed, inter-alia, praying for punishing the Opposite party for having allegedly committed contempt of this Court by violating the order dated 3rd march, 2004 (Annexure 2 to the Affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition) passed by this court in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4900 of 1998. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri S. S. Sharma holding brief for Sri R. B. Lal, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, and perused the record. ( 3 ) IT appears that an award dated 29th October, 1996 was given by the Labour Court, U. P. , Agra in Adjudication Case No. 311 of 1989. Copy of the said award has been filed as Annexure 1 to the Affidavit accompanying the Contempt Petition. ( 4 ) IT was held in the said award that the services of the petitioner-applicant had not been legally terminated, and he was deemed to be continuously in service. It was further directed that the petitioner-applicant be reinstated with full back wages since date of termination of his services. ( 5 ) IT further appears that against the said award, U. P. Rajya Khad Evam Avashayak Vastu Nigam limited, Agra and another filed the aforementioned Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 4900 of 1998. ( 6 ) BY the aforesaid order dated 3rd March 2004, this Court dismissed the said Writ Petition subject to certain modifications. Relevant portion of the said order dated 3rd March 2004 is as follows: "learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners-employers lastly submitted that admittedly from the date of termination of his services till today, the workman has not worked for a single day. In this view of the matter, on the principle of no Work No Pay, the workman concern is not entitled for any back wages and the Labour Court has committed an error in awarding full back wages to him. From the date of the award till today, the workman has not worked because of the interim order passed by this Court. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in (2002) S. C. Vol. 6, page 41 Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Anr. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case and also in the interest of justice and in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case reported in (2002) S. C. Vol. 6, page 41 Hindustan Motors Ltd. v. Tapan Kumar Bhattacharya and Anr. , the award of the Labour Court is modified to the extent that the workman concern shall be entitled only fifty per cent wages, instead of full back wages from the date of termination of his services till the date of reinstatement. In view of what has been stated above, this writ petition is dismissed except the modification to the extent, referred to above. Rest of the award is upheld. The interim order, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, there will be no order as to costs. " ( 7 ) IT further appears that U. P. Rajya Khad Evam Avashyak Vastu Limited and another filed special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court against the said order dated 3rd March 2004. Their Lordships of the Supreme Court by the order dated 1st November, 2004 dismissed the said special Leave Petition for non-prosecution. ( 8 ) THE said order dated 1st November 2004 passed by the Supreme Court is quoted below : "even on the second call none appears for the petitioners. The special leave petition is dismissed for non-prosecution " ( 9 ) IT is submitted by Sri S. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant that while the petitioner-applicant has been reinstated pursuant to the said award dated 29th October, 1996, back wages to be paid to the petitioner-applicant under the said award dated 29th October, 1996, as modified by the said order dated 3rd March, 2004 passed in the aforementioned Writ Petition, have not been paid to the petitioner-applicant so far, and as such, the opposite party is guilty of having committed contempt of this Court. ( 10 ) I have considered the submissions made by Sri S. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, and I find myself unable to accept the same. ( 10 ) I have considered the submissions made by Sri S. S. Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner-applicant, and I find myself unable to accept the same. ( 11 ) IN case, the back wages pursuant to the said award dated 29th October, 1996, as modified by the said order dated 3rd March, 2004 passed in the aforementioned Writ Petition, have not been paid to the petitioner-applicant, as alleged by the petitioner-applicant, it is open to the petitioner-applicant to pursue appropriate remedy in this regard before the appropriate forum. There is no question of the Opposite Party having committed any contempt of this Court in case, the said back wages have not been paid to the petitioner-applicant, as alleged by the petitioner-applicant. ( 12 ) IN view of the aforesaid discussion, the Contempt Petition lacks merit, and the same is liable to be dismissed. ( 13 ) THE Contempt Petition is accordingly dismissed. . .