Mahendra Kumar Purohit vs Prashant Tiwari and Others

Arun Bhansali, J.—This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 20.5.2014 passed by this Court in SBCWP No. 5544/2005. While deciding the writ petition, this Court passed following directions:--

"In view of above, this writ petition is partly allowed, the order dated 6.12.2003 is hereby quashed. The application filed by the petitioner Company for setting aside the award is hereby allowed with cost of Rs. 10,000/-. Consequently, ex-parte award passed by the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur dated 19.5.2003 is hereby quashed and the case is remitted to the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur to decide afresh within a period of six month from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. The award impugned dated 6.12.2003 is not implemented due to stay order passed by this Court, therefore, the respondent workman is entitled for salary last drawn under Section 17-B of the ID Act subject to filing affidavit before the petitioner Company that he did not remain in gainful employment during the pendency of this writ petition. Upon filing such affidavit, petitioner Company shall pay salary with effect from the date of award within a period of two months from the date of filing affidavit. Both the parties shall remain present before the Judge, Labour Court, Jodhpur on 07.07.2014." 2. From the material available on record, it appears that pursuant to the directions issued by this Court, the cost of Rs. 10,000/- was paid, the petitioner filed his affidavit before the Labour Court regarding his remaining out of employment for the period 19.5.2003 to 7.7.2014. Whereafter, when the payment as directed by this Court was not paid, the petitioner filed an application for striking out the defence of the respondent before the Labour Court.

Another application was filed before the Labour Court for ensuring payment in terms of the order passed by this Court by the petitioner. Both the applications were opposed by the respondent - Company and by order dated 20.11.2014, the Labour Court directed the payment of wages in terms of the directions issued by this Court, failing which it was ordered that the defence of the respondent - Company shall stand closed.

It appears that against the order dated 20.11.2014 passed by the Labour Court, the respondent - Company filed SBCWP No. 9163/2014. In the said writ petition by order dated 11.12.2014, it was directed as under:--

"Issue notice, returnable within two weeks.

Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order dated 20.11.2014 vide which the defence of the petitioners-employer struck off shall remain stayed subject to deposit of the amount due to the respondent-employee in pursuance to the Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. However, 50% of the said amount shall be disbursed to the respondent-employee forthwith."

Pursuant thereto, the employer deposited two cheques of 50% each in terms of the directions issued by this Court. While under the order dated 11.12.2014 passed in the subsequent writ petition, 50% amount was paid to the petitioner. The order dated 20.5.2014 passed by this Court had been meanwhile challenged by filing Special Leave Petition before the Hon''ble Supreme Court, which was also rejected by order dated 3.11.2014.

In the meanwhile, after the proceedings were held before the Labour Court, the Labour Court by its award dated 11.2.2015, held in favour of the petitioner-workman resulting in SBCWP No. 9163/2014 filed by the employer being rendered infructuous.

Notices in the present contempt petition were ordered to be issued on 16.12.2014 and on 18.2.2015, the facts about filing of SBCWP No. 9163/2014 and passing of the award was noticed and it was directed that in view of the development, it would be appropriate that SBCWP No. 9163/2014 was got disposed of by the parties. It was submitted by the parties that SBCWP No. 9163/2014 has been disposed of on 19.3.2015. It is also pointed out that the cheque of 50% amount deposited distinct to order dated 11.12.2014, in the meanwhile became stale and today the employer has produced a cheque, which under the directions of this Court has been accepted by counsel for the petitioner.

It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the entire conduct of the respondent-employer has been to willfully disobey the order dated 20.5.2014 passed by this Court. With reference to the stand taken before the Labour Court after passing of the order and in the Writ Petition No. 9163/2014, it was submitted that even the contents of the reply before the Labour Court and the writ petition before this Court are highly contemptuous and therefore, the respondents deserve to be dealt with severely.

In the reply, it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondents that the respondents have tendered unconditional apology before this Court and do not want to justify whatsoever has already transpired, inasmuch as the respondents were advised to take a particular line of remedy, which was availed and entertained also and therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have willfully disobeyed the directions issued by this Court.

Learned counsel further submits that as soon as the respondents were informed about the fact that the cheque of 50% has gone stale on account of expiry of three months'' period, a fresh cheque has been produced today itself. It is submitted that the respondents had no intention to disobey the orders passed by this Court and therefore, a lenient view may be taken in case this Court comes to the conclusion that any technical contempt has been committed by the respondents.

I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material placed on record.

The directions issued by this Court by order dated 20.5.2014 were clear as by way of condition precedent for setting aside of ex-parte award, this Court passed the directions while imposing cost of Rs. 10,000/-. It appears that under legal advise, the respondents have sought to question the validity of order dated 20.5.2014 by way of filing Special Leave Petition, which was also rejected and in the meanwhile, have taken a stand which apparently is contrary to the tenor and purport of the order passed by this Court on 20.5.2014, which was not accepted by the Labour Court. The respondents persisted with their said stand and filed SBCWP No. 9163/2014, wherein by order dated 11.12.2014, an interim order was passed, which was followed by the respondents.

It is a fact that the respondents preferred a writ petition, which was entertained and interim order was passed, whereafter the employer deposited the amount as per the directions of the interim order and 50% thereof was disbursed to the petitioner.

The very fact that interim order dated 11.12.2014 was in currency, it cannot be said that the respondents by availing the remedy had committed any willful disobedience. It would also be seen that even when on 18.2.2015, the present contempt petition was taken up by this Court and it was brought to the notice of this Court that the interim order dated 11.12.2014 was in currency, this Court also was required to direct the parties to get SBCWP No. 9163/2014 disposed of as apparently on that day in the presence of order dated 11.12.2014, it could not be said that the respondents were in contempt of order dated 20.5.2014.

The SBCWP No. 9163/2014 has been disposed of. The interim order dated 11.12.2014 has also came to an end and pursuant thereto, a cheque has been produced by the respondent, which has been handed over to the petitioner.

In the over all chequered facts of the case, it cannot be said that the action on part of the respondents was in willful disobedience of the order dated 20.5.2014 passed by this Court.

In view thereof, notices issued are discharged. The contempt petition is dismissed.