Full Text
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Date of Decision: 17h January, 2011
NISHIKESH TYAGI ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anuj Agarwal, Advocate.
Through: Ms. Maninder Acharya, Advocate for University of
Delhi.
JUDGMENT
1. Whether reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? No
2. To be referred to the reporter or not? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported No in the Digest?
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW, J.
1. Contempt is averred of the order dated 4th May, 2010 under Section 17B of the I.D. Act, 1947. The I.D. Act in Section 33C(2) provides for enforcement of the order under Section 17B of the Act. The Division Bench of this Court in Dr. Bimal Chander Sen v. Kamla Mathur 1983 Cri LJ 495 in the context of order 39 Rule 2A of the CPC 2011:DHC:255 CONT.CAS(C) 26/2011 has held that owing to mechanism for enforcement provided, contempt would not lie. The same view was followed in Shri Puneet Parkash v. Shri Jai Parkash MANU/DE/0773/2010 and in Anand Kumar Deepak Kumar v. Haldiram Bhujiawala 146(2008) DLT 100. Similarly, in Uma Shankar v. Hindustan Carbide Pvt. Ltd. 111(2004) DLT 270 also it was held that for non compliance of order under Section 17B, contempt would not lie, there being adequate remedy available to workmen under the I.D. Act. With respect to orders of the Labour Court cum Industrial Tribunal, it was also held in DGU Workers Union v. Kishu Tekchandani 114 (2004) DLT 22 that the remedy is by enforcement thereof and not by way of contempt.
2. In view of the aforesaid position of law, the Contempt petition is held to be not maintainable and dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to avail remedies available in law. No order as to costs.
RAJIV SAHAI ENDLAW (JUDGE) 17h January, 2011 pp..