Champa Rani vs Raj Sukh Nandan

J.V. Gupta. J.

This is a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, (thereinafter called the Act], which was filed on November 1, 1985, on the allegations that the award, directing reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service was published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated August 10, 1982, copy Annexure P.1. She had been approaching the respondent from time to time for reinstatement and also to pay her the back wages. She gave joining report on September 6, 1982, vide copy, Annexure P.2. She also submitted applications to the Labour Department and the other dignitaries of the State for the implementation of the award, but without any success, Even the Labour and Reconciliation Officer, Ambala Cantt. had written to the respondent vide letter dated March, 16, 1984, copy, Annexure PA, for implementing the award, but that too was without any result. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent bad committed deliberate contempt of Court for which he should be punished accordingly. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, certain preliminary objections were taken. It was pleaded that the contempt petition as such was not maintainable because the nonimplementation of the award of the industrial tribunal did not amount to contempt of court. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had got separate remedy by filing a petition under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to get the award implemented. Moreover, the contempt Petition was barred by time as it had been flied after more than one year of the award announced by the Court. In paragraph 4 of the preliminary objections it has been inter alia stated that an award is enforceable for a period of One year and after that, it ceases to have its effect as provided under section 9 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said award having been published on August 10, 1982, its operation came to an end on August 10, 1983 and. therefore, the contempt petition filed on November 1, 1985, was barred by time. It has also been pleaded that Civil Writ Petition No. 3266 of 1983, (The Management of M/S. Philadelphia Hospital, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad was filed against the award dated August, 10, 1982, as it was passed exparte. The said writ petition was dismissed on July 29, 1983, with the following observations :

"Present : Mr. M. S. Rakkar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

States that since the award given by the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad, was exparte, his client intends to file an application for setting aside the exparte award and be wants to withdraw the writ petition.

The petitioner is allowed to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to move the Industrial Tribunal to have the exparte award set aside.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

July 29, 1983".

According to the respondent keeping in view the said order of this Courts application dated September 40, 1983, for setting aside the exparte award was filed before the Industrial Tribunal and that it is still pending for final adjudication. It has been stated at the bar that April 28, 1988, is the next date fixed therein for evidence of the management.

Earlier, vide order dated March, 14, 1986, this case was referred to a larger Bench in order to decide whether an Industrial Tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act was a Court, as contemplated under the Contempt of Courts Act. The said question has been answered by the Division Bench vide order dated December 2, 1987 on the basis of an earlier judgment of this Court in C.O.C.P. No. 255 of 1976, decided on May 17, 1979, in the affirmative, i e, that a tribunal constituted under the Industrial Disputes Act, is a Court subordinate to the High Court, as regards the Contempt of Court, Act, 1971. It is, thus, in these circumstances that the case has come back for deciding the contempt petition on merits.

The learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection that the contempt petition was barred by time in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Act, which provides a period of one year for initiating any proceeding for contempt from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. According to the learned counsel, the period of operation of an award is one year from, the date the award becomes enforceable under section 17 A as contemplated under subsection (3) of section 19 of the Act, which, according to the learned counsel, came to an end on August 10, 1983, whereas the petition for contempt was filed on November 1, 1985, which was, therefore, clearly barred by time. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied. upon K.M. Mukherjee v. Secy S.B.I., 1968 Labour and Industrial Cases 127 and Baradakanta v. Misra, C.J, Orissa H.C., A.I.R. 1974 Supreme Court 2255. The learned counsel also contended that there was statutory remedy available to the petitioner under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, therefore, in view of the said remedy, the present contempt petition was not maintainable. Reliance in this behalf was placed by the learned counsel on Titaghur Paper mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 603. It was also submitted that proceedings under section 29 of the Act, were already pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate and that February 8, 1988, was the next date fixed for recording evidence of the prosecution.

On the other hand, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that after 30 days of the publication of the award, the Labour Court become functus officio as held by the Division Bench of this Court in the W.C.A.S.S. Ltd v. State of Punjab, 1986(3) Services Law Reporter 586, and, therefore, any application filed for setting aside the exparte award was of no consequence. It was also argued that there was DO specific denial by the respondent at any stage Besides, argued the learned counsel, as regards the non reinstatement of the petitioner, it was a continuing wrong and, therefore, the present petition was within time. In support of this contention the learned counsel relied upon the Banaras Ice Factory v. U.P Govt A.I.R. 1956 Allahabad 730 and Mohd Siddiq v. Raghunath Singh, 1979 Labour and Industrial Cases 876. It was next contended that under section 29 of the Act, no remedy is provided for the enforcement of an award. It only provides for he punishment for the breach of settlement or an award and, therefore, the contempt petition as such was maintainable. Reliance in support of this contention was placed on Bipinchandra v. Navin Fluorine Industries, 1981(2) Labour and Industrial Cases 1497 and Shankerpuri Chandpuri Goswami v. Shaikh Abdulhakim Asmadmahamad, (1985) 1 Labour Law Journal 281.

The main question to be decided in this petition is : whether this petition is barred by time or not, as contemplated under section 20 of the Act, which reads :

"No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed."

It is evident that even from the last letter dated March 16. 1984, copy Annexure P.4, written by the Labour and Reconciliation Officer, Ambala Cantt., to the respondent, the contempt petition was filed after more than one year thereof. By virtue of this letter, the management was given another opportunity for implementing the award and was directed to put in appearance on March, 23, 1984, in his office, but it did not appear. At least, the contempt will be said to have been committed on March 23, 1984, for the purpose of section 20 of the Act and this petition filed on November 1, 1985, was beyond the period of one year.

As regards the contention raised on behalf of the petitioner that the nonreinstatement of the petitioner to the service in terms of the award was a continuing wrong, that may be relevant for the purpose of section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act under which the proceedings are already pending as observed in the earlier part of this judgment, but it has no relevancy for the purpose of the present petition. In the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the question of limitation under section 20 of the'' Act did not come up for consideration. In Sharikerpuri Chandpuri Goswami''s case (supra), the Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court considered the question whether section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, was a bar to the proceedings under the Act or not. The answer returned was that in view of section 22 of the Act, which specifically provides that the provisions of the Act shall be in addition to and not in derogation of the provisions of any other law relating to contempt of courts, section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act was not a bar to the initiation of the contempt proceedings under the Act.

In these circumstances, this contempt petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of limitation in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Act. As observed earlier, in none of the cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this aspect of the matter was considered and, therefore, The said judgments are of no help to the case of the petitioner.

However, an affidavit dated February 4, 1988, has been filed on behalf of Dr. Raj Sukh Nandan, Medical Superintendent, Philadelphia Hospital, Ambala City, wherein it has been stated inter alia that the depondient is willing to make an offer to Smt. Champa Rani (the petitioner) to take her on duty afresh subject to the final decision/adjudicationtic of the case before the Industrial Tribunal, Faridabad, where the application for setting aside the exparte award is pending. In view of this affidavit, the petitioner may report for duty within a week, if so advised.

Consequently, this contempt petition fails and is dismissed with no order as to costs.

Revision dismissed.