Full Text
Translation output
6.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 494/2009
BIKRAM BHATTACHARJEE Petitioner
Through; Mr. P.K. Maitra &Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocates.
HIGH COURT OF DELHI
CONT.CAS(C) 494/2009
BIKRAM BHATTACHARJEE Petitioner
Through; Mr. P.K. Maitra &Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocates.
VERSUS
KKGUPTA &ORS. Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. RajeevNayan, Advocate.
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr. Advocate with Mr. RajeevNayan, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW
09.11.2009 The respondents as directed are stated to be present in person. The costs imposed on the last date has been paid before the court today.
This contempt petition has been filed with respect to the order dated 30 April, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.7173/200L The said writ petition was preferred by
M/s Singer India Ltd. with respect to the order dated 25^'' May, 2001 of the
Labour Court. By the said order the. reference made to the Labour Court was disposed of with the finding that the petitioner workman herein was illegally terminated on 14^'^ September, 1993 and the management ie. M/s Singer India Ltd. was directed to reinstate the petitioner workman with full back wages and continuity of service with all consequential relief Vide order dated 28"'
November, 2001in the writ petition, the operation ofthe award was stayed subject to the management depositing 50% of the back wages in this court and which were so deposited. On 30"' April, 2009, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he had instructions to withdraw the writ petition for the reason that the management had agreed to implement the complete award. Accordingly, it was held that nothing survives in the petition, 50% of the back wages lying deposited
1/- 2009:DHC:11682 in the court were ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner workman along with interest, if any, accrued thereon and it was further directed that the management shall pay the remaining amount ofback wages with interest at 9% from the date ofthe award till final payment within onemonth ofthe said order.
The grievance ofthe petitioner is that the consequential relief as allowed by the Labour Court has not been granted to him. He contends that one Mr. Jai Kumar Sethwas as on the date of his alleged termination, and which has beenset aside, junior to him and less qualified and the petitioner workman has not been granted all the consequential relief as have been enjoyed by the said Mr. Jai Kumar Seth since 14"' September, 2003 contempt case has been filed against officialjof Singer IndiaLtd.
The senior counsel for the respondents has drawn attention to the order wherein thedirection iswith respect totheremaining 50% oftheback wages only and not with respect to anything else. In fact Singer India Ltd. could have simply withdrawn the petition and there was really no necessity for making a statement before the court that the award was agreed to be implemented in entirety. This court inthe exercise of contempt jurisdiction is concerned withonly whether there is any willful violation ofa direction or an order ofthis court. The direction or order is only for payment ofthe remaining 50% ofthe back wages which have been paid in terms ofthe order. There was no direction or order ofthis court with respect to consequential relief In fact the 50% of the back wages subject to deposit of which the operation of the order was stayed on enquiry are also informed to have been deposited on the basis of the wages of the petitioner only and not as influenced by the wages/emoluments ofaforesaid Mr. Jai Kumar Seth.
The counsel for the petitioner on enquiry confirms that the petitioner had not raised any grievance ofthe management having not complied with the direction of deposit of50% ofthe back wages. The counsel for the petitioner draws attention to an application stated to have been filed in May, 2005. The same is however not found to be containing any grievance ofnon-comphance ofthe order dated 28"'
2/- November, 2001. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon D.K. Yadav Vs.
J.M.A. Industries Ltd (1993) H LLJ 696 SC, All Bengal Excise Licensees
Association Vs. Raghavendra Singh AIR 2007 SC 1386 &J.K. Synthetics Ltd
Vs. K.P. Agrawal (2007) 2 SCC 433. .However, they are not found relevant in view of the above. Moreover, if the petitioner is entitled to any further consequential relief, his remedy is under Section 3^Cofthe Industrial Disputes
Act. Though Section 33 Cprovides that an application thereunder is to be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employej^but since the operation of the award had been stayed by this court and which stay has been vacated on 30"' April, 2009 only, the petitioner would be entitled to invoke the said provision. The adjudication as to entitlement if any of petitioner to any other consequential relief cannot be done in these proceedings. No case of contempt is made out. The notice of contempt earlier issued is discharged.
The petitionis disposed^ 1AIENDLAW,J NOVEMBER 09,2009
Pp 3/-
09.11.2009 The respondents as directed are stated to be present in person. The costs imposed on the last date has been paid before the court today.
This contempt petition has been filed with respect to the order dated 30 April, 2009 in W.P.(C) No.7173/200L The said writ petition was preferred by
M/s Singer India Ltd. with respect to the order dated 25^'' May, 2001 of the
Labour Court. By the said order the. reference made to the Labour Court was disposed of with the finding that the petitioner workman herein was illegally terminated on 14^'^ September, 1993 and the management ie. M/s Singer India Ltd. was directed to reinstate the petitioner workman with full back wages and continuity of service with all consequential relief Vide order dated 28"'
November, 2001in the writ petition, the operation ofthe award was stayed subject to the management depositing 50% of the back wages in this court and which were so deposited. On 30"' April, 2009, the counsel for the petitioner informed the court that he had instructions to withdraw the writ petition for the reason that the management had agreed to implement the complete award. Accordingly, it was held that nothing survives in the petition, 50% of the back wages lying deposited
1/- 2009:DHC:11682 in the court were ordered to be released in favour of the petitioner workman along with interest, if any, accrued thereon and it was further directed that the management shall pay the remaining amount ofback wages with interest at 9% from the date ofthe award till final payment within onemonth ofthe said order.
The grievance ofthe petitioner is that the consequential relief as allowed by the Labour Court has not been granted to him. He contends that one Mr. Jai Kumar Sethwas as on the date of his alleged termination, and which has beenset aside, junior to him and less qualified and the petitioner workman has not been granted all the consequential relief as have been enjoyed by the said Mr. Jai Kumar Seth since 14"' September, 2003 contempt case has been filed against officialjof Singer IndiaLtd.
The senior counsel for the respondents has drawn attention to the order wherein thedirection iswith respect totheremaining 50% oftheback wages only and not with respect to anything else. In fact Singer India Ltd. could have simply withdrawn the petition and there was really no necessity for making a statement before the court that the award was agreed to be implemented in entirety. This court inthe exercise of contempt jurisdiction is concerned withonly whether there is any willful violation ofa direction or an order ofthis court. The direction or order is only for payment ofthe remaining 50% ofthe back wages which have been paid in terms ofthe order. There was no direction or order ofthis court with respect to consequential relief In fact the 50% of the back wages subject to deposit of which the operation of the order was stayed on enquiry are also informed to have been deposited on the basis of the wages of the petitioner only and not as influenced by the wages/emoluments ofaforesaid Mr. Jai Kumar Seth.
The counsel for the petitioner on enquiry confirms that the petitioner had not raised any grievance ofthe management having not complied with the direction of deposit of50% ofthe back wages. The counsel for the petitioner draws attention to an application stated to have been filed in May, 2005. The same is however not found to be containing any grievance ofnon-comphance ofthe order dated 28"'
2/- November, 2001. The counsel for the petitioner has relied upon D.K. Yadav Vs.
J.M.A. Industries Ltd (1993) H LLJ 696 SC, All Bengal Excise Licensees
Association Vs. Raghavendra Singh AIR 2007 SC 1386 &J.K. Synthetics Ltd
Vs. K.P. Agrawal (2007) 2 SCC 433. .However, they are not found relevant in view of the above. Moreover, if the petitioner is entitled to any further consequential relief, his remedy is under Section 3^Cofthe Industrial Disputes
Act. Though Section 33 Cprovides that an application thereunder is to be made within one year from the date on which the money became due to the workman from the employej^but since the operation of the award had been stayed by this court and which stay has been vacated on 30"' April, 2009 only, the petitioner would be entitled to invoke the said provision. The adjudication as to entitlement if any of petitioner to any other consequential relief cannot be done in these proceedings. No case of contempt is made out. The notice of contempt earlier issued is discharged.
The petitionis disposed^ 1AIENDLAW,J NOVEMBER 09,2009
Pp 3/-
JUDGMENT