Batra Hospital And Medical ... vs Management Of Batra Hospital And ...
2003 Latest Caselaw 330 Del

ORDER

C.K. Mahajan, J.

CCP 47/2002

1. The petitioners complain of violation of the order dated June 1, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge. Operative part of the order reads as under:

"..... Viewed in all complexities, there is no legal infirmity in the impugned order. All that the petitioners are required to do is to either adopt the Model Standing Order under the said Act, or submit its own Standing Orders for the scrutiny, approval and ratification of the Authority. It can hardly be countenanced in the 21st century that any person may be permitted to engage labour without promising and ensuring them minimum protection against arbitrary treatment. This minimum standard has been set out in the said Act. On behalf of the Workman, counsel had drawn attention to the various Rules/Orders followed by the petitioners which they would consider draconian and contrary to fair labour practice. These need not be dealt with by the Court since this scrutiny is properly that of the Authority under the said Act. All interim Orders are recalled. The Hospital shall file with the certifying Authority constituted under the said Act its Standing Orders or any other document by which it governs the relations between the Management and its workmen within fifteen days from today. The Certifying Authority shall complete the appropriate action within three months from today......"

I have heard counsel for the parties.

2. The respondents have filed affidavits. At the outset they tendered an unqualified apology for any unintentional action on their part which did not meet approval of the Court. A common judgment was passed by the Court in CWP Nos. 4499/2000, 1264/2000, 2066/2000 and 502/2001. An L.P.A No. 311/2001 was filed by Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. petitioner in CWP No. 4499/2000, before the Division Bench of this Court assailing the order passed by the learned single Judge on June 1, 2001. It is stated that the respondents came to know of the filing of the said LPA from the appellant in the said appeal. It is further stated that the Law Officer of the respondents was under the bona fide impression that the Division Bench had stayed the impugned judgment. This fact was not verified by the respondents. The respondents awaited the outcome of the said LPA and did not prefer an independent appeal. On receipt of the notice in the present contempt petition the respondents came to know for the first time that the judgment of the learned single Judge had not been stayed. It is stated that on further enquiries the respondents came to know that the Division Bench was pleased to extend the time for compliance of the order of the learned single Judge. Thereafter the respondents immediately complied with the directions given by the learned single Judge. Respondents concede that standing order was not filed for the reasons stated above but there was no intention to disobey the orders of this Court.

3. In light of the affidavit filed by the respondents, I am satisfied that the orders of this Court have been complied with. However the explanation offered does not inspire confidence. There is no explanation given as to how the respondents concluded that the operation of the judgment had been stayed. It shows the casual approach of the respondents. It was the duty of the respondents to ascertain as a fact whether the Letters Patent Bench had granted a stay of the operation of the order of the learned single Judge.

4. The respondents have urged that the disobedience was not willful. They were conscious and aware of the purport and implication of the order. They claim to be under a mistaken impression that the order of the single Judge was stayed. The respondents had no intention of disobeying the orders of this Court. The inaction on the part of the respondents in giving effect to the order of the Single Judge has thus resulted in causing harassment to the petitioner who was compelled to approach this Court first by way of a writ petition and then by way of the present contempt petition. The petitioner ought not to suffer on account of the lapse of the respondents.

5. In light of the aforesaid discussion and the fact that the order has been complied with the explanation offered by the respondents is accepted. However, I am of the view that ends of justice would be served if the respondents be put to terms for the delay in compliance of the order passed by this Court. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs. 12,000 as costs. No further orders are called for in the present petition. The same stands disposed of. Notice is discharged.

CM 741/2001 in LPA 311/2001

6. By an order dated June 1, 2001, the learned single Judge has directed the appellant either to adopt the Model Standing Orders under the Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act, 1946 or submit its own Standing Orders for the scrutiny, approval and ratification of the authority concerned. Learned counsels for the Appellant state that without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the Appellants, the Appellant shall submit its own standing orders for the scrutiny, approval and ratification of the concerned authority. Let the standing orders be submitted within four weeks to the concerned authority by the appellant. On receipt of the standing orders, the concerned authority shall hold an inquiry for determining whether or not the hospital or any part thereof is an establishment within the meaning of the aforesaid Act. The determination of the concerned authority shall be filed before it within a period of six weeks from the date of submission of the standing orders which the appellant would like to apply in case this appeal is rejected. The concerned authority shall submit its report but the submission of the report will not mean that the standing orders will become operative.