Allahabad High Court
Seeta Ram Gautam vs T.K. Singh Bishen, Regional ... on 9 July, 2019
Bench: Mahesh Chandra Tripathi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 10
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4041 of 2019
Applicant :- Seeta Ram Gautam
Opposite Party :- T.K. Singh Bishen, Regional Manager And Another
Counsel for Applicant :- Ajay Kumar Srivastava
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant.
By order dated 1.3.2019 passed in Writ C No. 27322 of 2015 filed by the applicant, this Court directed as under:
"....32. Therefore, it merits acceptance that in the present case, the plea of lack of opportunity to lead evidence before the Industrial Tribunal has been set up in the writ proceedings, only by way of a pretence and not to bring out any real or existing prejudice caused to the petitioner. Even earlier, the domestic inquiry conducted against the respondent-workman with respect to same or similar charge was found vitiated in the departmental appeal proceedings. Accordingly, the Tribunal has not erred in not exercising its discretionary, inherent power and in not calling the petitioner-management to adduce additional evidence to bring home the charges against the respondent workman.
33. Consequently, the domestic enquiry being found vitiated, and in absence of any right to lead evidence being claimed and in absence of any other evidence to bring home the charge/s against the respondent-workman, the Industrial Tribunal committed no error in making the award of reinstatement. It does not call for any interference, to that extent.
34. As to the back wages, it does appear, the respondent-workman neither pleaded nor proved the fact that he was not gainfully employed during the period of industrial dispute remaining pending. That burden having not been discharged by him, clearly, the award of full back wages appears to be excessive, in absence of any special or cogent reason being assigned for the same.
35. However, learned counsel for the respondent states, the respondent-workman is still seeking reinstatement. Also, the matter has remained pending since 2002. In that view of the matter, it would be in the interest of justice that the matter be brought to a close now. Therefore, instead of remitting the matter, the award of the Industrial Tribunal is partially modified thus: in addition to relief of reinstatement with continuity of service for all future purposes, in lieu of the relief of full back-wages, the respondent workman be entitled to a lump sum payment equal to 50% of his last drawn wages for the period from date of his termination till his reinstatement in service. However, for the period of suspension, the workman would be entitled to his full wages. The petitioner shall itself compute and deposit the above amount with the Labour Court, Kanpur within a period of three months from today. Upon such deposit being made, the Labour Court shall proceed to forthwith release the same in favour of the respondent-workman Seeta Ram Gautam. In the event of failure on the part of the petitioner to deposit the aforesaid amount within time specified, the petitioner shall be further liable to pay interest @ 8% on that amount, from the date of this order till the date of actual payment.
36. Writ petition is thus partly allowed. No order as to costs. "
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that a certified copy of the aforesaid order was submitted for compliance before the opposite party no. 2 but the opposite party no. 2 has wilfully not complied with the order and, thus, has committed civil contempt liable for punishment under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
Prima facie a case of contempt has been made out. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case, one more opportunity is afforded to the opposite party no. 2 to comply with the aforesaid order of the writ Court within three weeks from the date of production of a certified copy of this order.
The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party no. 2 and another self-addressed envelope to the office within one week from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party no. 2 within one week thereafter and keep a record thereof.
The opposite party no. 2 shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate the order to the applicant through the self-addressed envelope within a week thereafter.
With the aforesaid observations, this application is disposed of at this stage with liberty to the applicant to move a fresh application, if the order is not complied with by the opposite party no. 2 within the stipulated time as aforementioned.
Order Date :- 9.7.2019
A.K.Srivastava
