United Labour Federation vs P. Titus Gnanadas, Managing Director, Hosur Electronic and General Engineering Pvt. Ltd. and V.G. John David Robinson, Manager-Administration, Hosur Electronics and General Engineering Pvt. Ltd., R. Jayaraman

P. Jyothimani, J.—The above contempt petition is filed by the petitioner''s Union in the writ petition for punishing the respondents for wilful

disobedience of the order of this Court dated 27.09.2006 made in W.P. No. 27977 of 2006.

The petitioner Union filed the above writ petition for direction against the Management of Dynaspede Integrated Systems Private Limited, to pay

the members of the petitioner Union working in the Hosur factory of the Company, their wages from July, 2006.

The facts of the case was that, according to the Dynaspede Integrated Systems Private Limited, who was the first respondent in the writ

petition, the second respondent, viz., Hosur Electronics and General Engineering Pvt. Ltd., is their lessee and there is a dispute as to whether 56

employees are the workmen under the first respondent or the second respondent and such dispute is pending before the Conciliation Officer,

Krishnagiri, apart from the non-employment of 56 workers, which is also pending. In the above writ petition, after notice was received, the second

respondent, has accepted to take the workmen of the petitioner Union except one Babu Sekar in the employment of Hosur Electronics and

General Engineering Private Limited without prejudice to the conciliation proceedings. It was at the instance of the counsel for the second

respondent in writ petition, that the second respondent will take the said workmen without prejudice, the writ petition was disposed of by this

Court by passing the following order on 27.09.2006, which reads as under:

The learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent would submit that even though the 2nd respondent is taking all earnest steps to employ all the

members of the petitioner Union, depending upon the policy of the 2nd respondent to employ, if the 2nd respondent is unable to employ all the 56

persons, it should be open to those whoever is not employed to work out their remedy in accordance with law. Making it clear that the 2nd

respondent shall take all earnest steps as agreed by the learned Counsel for the 2nd respondent to employ all members of the petitioner Union and

in that event, the members of the petitioner Union shall work under the 2nd respondent without prejudice to their right and also make it clear that in

the event of inability of the 2nd respondent in employing some of the members, it is always open to such members to work out their remedies in

accordance with law. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms.

This Court has also gives further direction in para 6, which reads as under:

It is also made clear that the 2nd respondent shall pay the salary to the members of the petitioner Union, which is claimed from July 2006,

making it also clear that it is for the 2nd respondent to decide about the payment of salary for the period during which the members of the

petitioner Union have not reported. The salary shall be continued to be paid from the date of report till they are employed by the 2nd respondent.

The petitioner Union in the contempt petition has stated that as per the order of this Court, they have reported for duty on 28.09.2006 before

the respondents in this petition, who are the Managing Director and the Manager (Administration) respectively of Hosur Electronics General

Engineering Pvt. Ltd., and salary was paid from the date of reporting till 28.02.2007.

It is the case of the petitioner Union that even though sufficient work was available, the same was not allotted to the members of the petitioner

Union and in spite of it they have worked and till 28.02.2007 and salary was paid. It is the complaint of the petitioner Union that after 28.02.2007,

the respondents have stopped work and refused to pay salary to them.

On the other hand, the respondents have filed counter affidavit and it is their case that the members of the petitioner Union have deliberately

failed to do the work in spite of the work allotted to them and ultimately they have stopped the work from 28.02.2007 and therefore, they were

not paid salary. Therefore, there is a disputed question, viz., whether the petitioner''s case that in spite of sufficient work available, the members of

the petitioner Union were not allowed to work especially after 28.02.2007, or in spite of the offering of work, it was the members of the petitioner

Union, who have not worked and they have resorted to go-slow and ultimately stopped working. It is also not in dispute that the respondents have

declared lock-out on 26.05.2007, about which an independent labour dispute has been raised and the same is pending.

So, on the factual position, there are two disputes pending for conciliation, one is relating to, as to who is the employer and the second relates to

lock-out declared by the respondents on 26.05.2007. The present complaint by the petitioner Union is that in spite of an undertaking given in this

Court, based on which the writ petition was disposed of on 27.09.2006, agreeing to pay salary till the members of the petitioner Union are

employed, the respondents failed to pay salary and give work, therefore, it is disobedience of the Court''s order. As I have elicited above, the

second respondent would state that it is the members of the petitioner Union who have resorted to go-slow and ultimately strike was called for and

have not turned up for duty from 28.02.2007.

On the strict sense of the order passed by this Court, wherein this Court has stated that as long as the members of the petitioner Union is

continued to be employed, the second respondent should pay salary to them, which was only a temporary arrangement till the conciliation

proceedings conclude. It was at the instance of the respondents Company such arrangement was made and in the disputed factual position, I do

not think that there is any contempt. In view of the same, the contempt petition fails and the same is dismissed. However, it is made clear that the

petitioner Union is entitled to raise any dispute in accordance with law in respect of the stand of the petitioner that the respondents have not paid

salary or offered work from 28.02.2007 till the date of lock out, viz., 26.05.2007.