Allahabad High Court
R.K. Awasthi vs Ishwar Chandra Nigam & Others on 27 July, 2017
Bench: Bharati Sapru, Mahboob Ali
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 35
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 1860 of 2010
Appellant :- R.K. Awasthi
Respondent :- Ishwar Chandra Nigam & Others
Counsel for Appellant :- S. Chatterjee
Counsel for Respondent :- Miss Bushra Maryam
Hon'ble Bharati Sapru,J.
Hon'ble Mahboob Ali,J.
We have heard Shri S.C. Chaterjee, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri A.C. Mishra and Shri Nimai Dass, learned Standing Counsel and Miss. Busra Maryam, learned counsel for the respondents.
The present special appeal arises out of an order passed by the Contempt Court dated 06.10.2010 in Civil Misc. Contempt Application No.3322 of 2007, by which the Contempt Court was seeking to enforce compliance of an order dated 23.04.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge, whereby the District Magistrate, Kanpur had been directed to enforce the recovery under Section 6(H) 1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
The facts of the case are that one Ishwar Chandra Nigam initiated a proceeding of contempt for the alleged disobedience of the order dated 23.04.2007 passed by this Hon'ble Court in writ petition no.20306 of 2007. The writ petition had been filed for enforcement of recovery certificate for an amount of Rs.6,53,372.17/- issued under Section 6H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. In the said writ petition the below noted order was passed on 23.04.2007:
"The grievance raised by the petitioner is that despite an order for recovery of sum of Rs.6,53,372/- having been issued by the competent authority under Section 6-H (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 dated 08.09.2006 no further action is being taken by the Collector/District Magistrate, Kanpur (respondent no.3) in the matter.
In the opinion of the Court, the District Magistrate is obliged under law to enforce the recovery as directed under Section 6-H(1) of the authority concerned.
In view of the aforesaid, liberty is granted to petitioner to make a fresh representation ventilating all his grievances before respondent no.3 within two weeks from today along with certified copy of the order. On such representation being made, respondent no.3 shall consider and decide the same, preferably within four weeks from the date the representation is so filed and shall ensure all consequential action immediately thereafter.
With the aforesaid observation/directions the present writ petition is disposed of finally."
It may be brought to notice that mechanism is provided under the provisions of Section 14-A of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for seeking the enforcement of an award made under the Act. The procedure under the Act itself is adequate. The Writ Court is not to be utilized for the enforcement of an award passed under the provisions of Section 6(H) 1 of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
In pursuance thereof the District Magistrate did start proceedings and sought to sell the immovable property of the appellant. The properties of the appellant were attached. The bank accounts were seized. The workman thereafter used a novel method to enforce the recovery and filed contempt application. The following prayers were made in the contempt application:
"(i) to initiate contempt proceedings against respondent no.1 and 2 for the non-compliance, disobedience and defiance of the order dated 23.04.2007 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Writ Petition No.20306 of 2007.
(ii) to impose the maximum amount of punishment upon the respondent No.1 and 2 permissible under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
(iii) to summon the respondent no.1 and 2 personally before this Hon'ble Court for violating and flouting the order dated 23.04.2007 passed by this Hon'ble Court.
(iv) to pass such other and further orders as may be deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case."
It may be noted at the very outset that no prayer was made by the applicant for grant of any interest in the matter.
It is the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that the Contempt Court couldn't have added or supplemented anything to the order passed by the learned Single Judge.
This Court had asked Shri Nimai Dass and Shri A.C. Mishra, learned Standing Counsels to assist the Court in this matter and they have done so ably and have cited before us the decision of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and another Vs. Pawan Kumar Singh and Others reported in [2015 (11) ADJ 210 (DB)], wherein this Court were relying on a decision of the Apex Court in the case of Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & MD, ONGC Vs. M. George Ravishekaran reported in AIR 2014 SC 950 has held that Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court as noticed above.
From a reading of the order passed by the Contempt Court it is clear that the order dated 23.04.2007 was complied with and the payment was deposited in the office of the Additional Labour Commissioner, but because there was delay in payment of the amount, interest on interest had been awarded.
The Contempt Court while relying on a decision of the Apex Court had gone into the question and had examined the circumstances as to when interest on interest could have been paid.
No doubt, while these matters can be considered but as has been advised by the Hon'ble Apex Court they can be considered in the appropriate forum but not by the Contempt Court. The jurisdiction of the Contempt Court is something quite different. It is confined to the examination of the fact as to whether a case of contempt has been made out; to ensure compliance and if there is no compliance then to punish for contempt. The jurisdiction of the Contempt Court in our opinion would not extend to adding, supplementing or subtracting anything to the order passed by any other Court.
In view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Anil Kumar Gupta and another (supra) and in view of the Apex Court decision in Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman & MD, ONGC (Supra) relying upon para 25 of the said judgment, we are of the opinion that the order passed by the Contempt Court awarding interest on interest is not justified. It is, therefore, set aside.
The special appeal stands allowed.
Order Date :- 27.7.2017
pks
