Bikram Bhattacharjee v. K.K.Gupta & Ors

ORDER

09.11.2009 The respondentsas directedare statedto be presentin person. The costs imposedon the last datehas beenpaidbeforethe courttoday. This contemptpetitionhas been filed with respectto the order dated 30 April, 2009 in W.P.(C)No.7173/200LThe said writ petitionwas preferredby 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 petitionerworkman herein was illegally terminatedon 14^'^ September,1993 and the managementie. M/s SingerIndiaLtd. 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 operationofthe awardwas stayedsubject to the managementdepositing50% of the back wages in this court and which wereso deposited.On 30"'April,2009,the counselfor the petitionerinformedthe courtthat he had instructionsto withdrawthe writ petitionfor the reasonthat the managementhad agreed to implementthe completeaward. Accordingly,it was heldthatnothingsurvivesin the petition, 50% of the backwageslyingdeposited 1/-Certify that the digital file and physical file have been compared and the digital data is as per the physical file and no page is missing. in the court were ordered to be released in favour of the petitionerworkman along with interest,if any, accrued thereon and it was further directedthat the managementshall pay the remainingamount ofback wages with interestat 9% fromthe dateofthe awardtill final paymentwithinonemonthofthe said order. The grievanceofthe petitioneris that the consequentialreliefas allowed by the Labour Court has not been grantedto him. He contendsthat one Mr. Jai Kumar Sethwas as on the date of his allegedtermination,and which has beenset aside, juniorto him and less qualifiedand the petitionerworkman has not been granted all the consequentialreliefas have been enjoyed by the said Mr. Jai Kumar Seth since 14"' September, 2003 contempt case has been filed against officialjof SingerIndiaLtd. The senior counsel for the respondentshas drawn attentionto the order whereinthedirectioniswithrespectto theremaining50% ofthebackwagesonly and not with respectto anythingelse. In fact SingerIndiaLtd. couldhave simply withdrawnthe petitionand there was really no necessityfor making a statement before the court that the award was agreed to be implementedin entirety. This courtinthe exerciseof contemptjurisdictionis concernedwithonlywhetherthere is any willfulviolationofa directionor an order ofthis court. The directionor order is only for paymentofthe remaining50% of the back wages which have been paid in termsofthe order. Therewas no directionor orderofthis courtwith respect to consequentialrelief In fact the 50% of the back wages subject to deposit of which the operation of the order was stayed on enquiry are also informedto have been depositedon the basis of the wages of the petitioneronly and not as influencedby the wages/emolumentsofaforesaidMr. Jai Kumar Seth. The counsel for the petitioneron enquiry confirms that the petitionerhad not raisedany grievanceofthe managementhavingnot compliedwiththe directionof depositof50% ofthe back wages. The counselfor the petitionerdraws attention to an applicationstatedto havebeenfiled in May, 2005. The same is howevernot found to be containingany grievance ofnon-comphanceofthe orderdated28"' 2/-November,2001. The counsel for the petitionerhas relied upon D.K. Yadav Vs. J.M.A. Industries Ltd (1993) H LLJ 696 SC, All Bengal Excise Licensees AssociationVs. RaghavendraSingh AIR 2007 SC 1386 & J.K. SyntheticsLtd Vs. K.P. Agrawal(2007) 2 SCC 433. .However,they are not found relevantin view of the above. Moreover, if the petitioner is entitled to any further consequentialrelief, his remedy is under Section3^Cofthe IndustrialDisputes Act. Though Section33 Cprovidesthat an applicationthereunderis to be made within one year from the date on whichthe money became due to the workman from the employej^butsince the operationofthe award had been stayed by this court and which stay has been vacated on 30"' April, 2009 only, the petitioner would be entitledto invokethe said provision.The adjudicationas to entitlement if any of petitionerto any other consequentialrelief 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/-

6. % IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI CONT.CAS(C) 494/2009 BIKRAMBHATTACHARJEE 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. CORAM: HON'BLEMR. JUSTICE RAJIV SAHAIENDLAW