Bombay High Court
Ashok Sitaram Kelwade And Others vs Raju Hukumchand Jain, Managing ... on 22 March, 2022
Bench: A.S. Chandurkar, Mukulika Shrikant Jawalkar
904cp 193.2019.odt
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Contempt Petition (CP) No. 193/2019
IN
Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) No. 289/2008 (D)
IN
Writ Petition (WP) No. 4604/2003 (D)
Ashok Sitaram Kelwade and ors.
..VS..
Shri Raju Hukumchand Jain
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Court's or Judge's Order
Coram, appearances, Court's Orders
or directions and Registrar's order__________________________________________________________
Shri H.V. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent
CORAM : A. S. CHANDURKAR AND SMT. M.S. JAWALKAR, J.J.
DATED : 22/03/2022
The grievance of the petitioners in this Contempt Petition is
that the respondent has failed to comply with the directions issued
by this Court in Letters Patent Appeal No. 289/2008 decided on
13.07.2017.
About twenty nine employees who were engaged with the
respondent had filed Complaint U.L.P. No. 752/1998 before the
Labour Court challenging the order of termination issued to them.
The Labour Court on 30.04.2002 allowed that Complaint and
directed reinstatement of the complainants with full back-wages.
The Industrial Court however allowed the Revision Application
preferred by the present respondent and dismissed the Complaint.
Writ Petition No. 4604/2003 preferred by twenty four
complainants was partly allowed. While restoring the direction of
reinstatement, an amount of Rs. 50,000/- each was directed to be
paid to the complainants in lieu of back-wages. This judgment of
learned Single Judge was challenged by both the parties and on
SMGate
904cp 193.2019.odt
13.07.2017 both the Letters Patent Appeals came to be dismissed.
After notice was issued in the Contempt Petition an affidavit-
in-reply was filed on behalf of the respondent. It is stated that on
09.01.2010 a General Notice was issued by the respondent stating
therein that on account of availability of work at the factory the
respondent intended to offer employment to the retrenched
employees. It is further stated that about nine complainants
accepted the employment and continued working till the Unit of
the respondent was permanently closed from 25.01.2020. Six other
complainants also accepted the employment but subsequently
abandoned their duties. Five employees did not accept the
employment and failed to join duty. Two complainants expired and
one complainant resigned. Services of one complainant who was
placed under suspension came to be terminated pursuant to the
closure of the factory. It is therefore stated that the order passed by
the Labour Court as modified by the learned Single Judge stands
complied with. There is no wilful or deliberate breach of any of the
directions as issued.
The learned Counsel for the petitioners is however absent.
To grant one opportunity, put up on 29.03.2022.
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed
by SANDIP
SANDIP MAHADEV
MAHADEV GATE
GATE Date:
2022.03.23
18:16:52 +0530
SMGate
