Mahabir Parshad vs Naresh Kumar and Others

G.R. Majithia, J.—This is an appeal u/s 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (for short the Act) against the judgment passed by a learned single Judge of this Court in COCP No. 359 of 1986 whereby he convicted the appellant u/s 12 of the Act and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for 15 days and a fine of Rs. 2000/-. Indisputably, respondent-Naresh Kumar joined the service of M/s. Hissar Oil and General Mills, Delhi Road, Hissar as Electrician on 10-10-1973. His services were terminated without issuing any show cause notice. Reference u/s 10(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was made to the Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, the workman and the management arrived at a settlement. The same is reproduced in the award dated October 15, 1979 and reads thus :--

According to the settlement the workman agreed to be reinstated by the management with continuity of service and with payment of Rs. 1000/- only, in addition to his earned wages. The Management also agreed in view of maintaining cordial relations between the parties.

Both prayed that award be given that Management shall reinstate the workman with continuity of service and shall pay to the workman a sum of Rs. 1000/- only on 15th November, 1979 or within a week thereafter.

The management allegedly did not obey the terms of the award. The workman moved a petition u/s 12 of the Act against S/Shri Kulwant Singh, Secretary-cum-Labour Commissioner, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh, Mahabir Parshad, Proprietor, M/s. Hissar Oil and General Mills, Delhi Road Hissar and R.S. Aggarwal, Labour Commissioner, Government of Haryana, Chandigarh.

The petition was mainly contested on behalf of respondent No. 2 Mahabir Parshad on the ground that the Industrial Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to the High Court in the sense in which it is understood in the Act and that the workman would enforce the award under the provisions of the Industrial Tribunal Act. Learned single Judge repelled the contention of respondent No. 2 and held him guilty for contempt and sentenced him under the Act as stated so. The order of the learned single Judge is under challenge in this appeal.

Mr. Jagan Nath Kaushal, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of appellant submits that the Industrial Tribunal is not a Court subordinate to the High Court and as such, the workman could not initiate contempt proceedings against the appellant. He further submits that contempt proceedings are not substitute of the execution process. The award of the Industrial Tribunal could be executed u/s 33C of the Industrial Disputes Act and in support of his submission, he relied upon Civil Appeal No. 2050 of 1990, the Alahar Co-operative Credit Service Society, Alahar District Kurukshetra v. Sham Lal, decided by the Apex Court on April 24, 1990. In that judgment, in was held thus :--

The Labour Court is not a Court Subordinate to the High Court in the sense the Contempt of Courts Act makes provision requiring the High Court to deal with contempt of its subordinate Courts; therefore, the High Court should have looked into that aspect before entertaining the contempt proceedings for non-compliance of the direction of the Labour Court. Contempt proceedings are again not intended to be a substitute of the execution process and, therefore, care should have been taken before entertaining the contempt petition to examine the maintainability of such action.

The law laid down in this judgment fully applies to the present case. In the light of the judgment of the Apex Court, the judgment of learned single Judge cannot be sustained.

For the reasons stated above, the appeal succeeds. The judgment of the learned single Judge is set aside and the contempt petition is dismissed.