Food Corporation Of India Canteen ... vs Food Corporation Of India And Ors.
2005 Latest Caselaw 677 Del

JUDGMENT

S. Ravindra Bhat, J.

1. The petitioner, a registered trade union, had sought parity with employees of Central Government, in respect of its members, employees in canteens of the Food Corporation of India (FCI, a statutory corporation), through proceedings under Article 32 of the Constitution of India. By an order dated 30th August, 1993, those grievances were directed to be referred by the Central Government to the Central Government Industrial Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). A reference was, therefore, made on 14.12.1993. During pendency of the dispute, the petitioner filed a writ petition, before this court, under Article 226, being WP 9279/1998. The court directed payment of Rs. 10, 000/- to each employee, as an interim measure.

2. The tribunal made its award on 6th March, 2000. The tribunal found merit in the claim for parity in pay and allowances, put forward by the employees of non-statutory canteens of the FCI. The Tribunal therefore held as follows:

"It is found that the canteen employees of the Corporation is entitled for pay and allowance and other service benefits equal to the Central Government departmental canteen employees."

A revision of pay scales was undertaken by the FCI, through its circular dated 18th September, 2000. It is stated that the circular did not amount to compliance with the award of the Tribunal. The petitioners aver that the respondent FCI, in its affidavit dated 2nd February, 2001 made a statement to the effect that the award had been complied with; consequently, the pending writ petition was disposed off on 26-3-2001.

3. This petition, under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, seek initiation of proceedings for disobedience with orders of court, and making a false statement, leading to disposal of the pending writ petition, filed in 1998. It is averred that the non-implementation of the award, and the false statement of the respondents, leading to the disposal of the writ petition, is contumacious.

4. The FCI, in its return, has denied any contumacious conduct; it has averred that all benefits, that had to be extended, as per the award, were in fact given to the employees represented by the petitioner union. It is also averred in view of the findings of the Tribunal that benefits already granted to members of the petitioner union under orders of the Supreme Court cannot be curtailed; it states that in fact, no such benefit has been restricted or curtailed.

5. During the course of proceedings, parties filed further pleadings in the form of affidavits. The petitioner, in its additional affidavit filed on 16th November, 2004, has listed 17 categories of employees, with the relative pay-scales extended by FCI, as compared with what has been given by the Central Government. Likewise, another chart of allowances which ought to be paid, with what has been actually implemented, has also been shown in a chart. The chart alleges that barring two items, which are partially granted, other items/ allowances have not been extended to employees represented by the petitioner. The petitioner has relied upon two circulars in support of their contentions.

6. The respondents, in their pleadings have taken the position that the Award has been complied with; and that the statement made before this court, cannot be construed as contumacious. They have also averred that the question as to whether certain allowances have to be paid or not is a matter of dispute, since all allowances claimed by the petitioners cannot be granted. The applicability of circulars to the employees of categories such as are members of the petitioners are also disputed. It is averred that the matter cannot be adjudicated in contempt proceedings, and the petitioner has to either seek its remedies under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or initiate substantive proceedings, under that Act.

7. Mr. Krishnamani, learned senior counsel for the petitioners, submits that the inaction of the respondents in regard to the full implementation of the Award, in that all allowances claimed have not been granted, in respect of all categories of employees, amounts to deliberate and willful contempt of the Tribunal's order. He has also taken umbrage at the manner in which the respondents made a statement before this court, leading to disposal of the previous writ petition. Counsel relied upon the terms of various circulars of the Central Government, to submit that similar employees working with it were entitled to various allowances, which have been denied to members of the petitioner.

8. Mr. Lekhi, learned senior counsel for the respondents, submits that the issues raised by the petitioners cannot be gone into in contempt proceedings. He states that the award of tribunal has been complied with. The petitioners are in fact seeking adjudication on applicability of various circulars, and a decision on issues that were not determined. Contempt proceedings are limited to scrutiny about whether the order of court has been in fact complied with, not the manner or extent of its compliance, particularly if substantive issues of controversy are to be gone into.

9. It has been held that power of the Court to initiate and take action under contempt jurisdiction is to uphold the majesty and the dignity of the courts of law. That power contempt is a special one; it has to be exercised sparingly, with care and caution. The Court exercises it on being satisfied about the true effect of contemptuous conduct. In Jhareswar Prashad Pal v. Tarak Nath Ganguli, 2002 (5) SCC 352 the Supreme Court held as follows:

"The contempt jurisdiction should be confined to the question whether there has been any deliberate dis-obedience of the order of the Court and if the conduct of the party which is alleged to have committed such dis-obedience is contemptuous, the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is not entitled to enter into question which have been dealt with and decided in the judgment or order, violation of which is alleged by the applicant. The Court has considered the directions issued in the judgment or order and not to consider the question as to what judgment or the order should be contained."

10. In the present case, barring 4 categories of employees, to whom the pay-scales extended are alleged to be different from what has been extended to Central Government employees, all other categories admittedly have been given grades stipulated for Central Government employees performing similar or identical functions. As far as allowances are concerned, the affidavit of FCI, as well as submissions are to the effect that the extent and nature of such allowances have to vary, having regard to the fact that the canteens are run by committees.

11. After considering the submission on behalf of the parties, and the materials placed on record, I am of the opinion that the issues sought to be raised in the present proceedings are not within the purview of contempt proceedings. The question of applicability, and extent of benefits that can be granted to employees who are members of he petitioner, are, in my considered view, matters examination. They cannot legitimately form the subject matter of contempt proceedings. I refrain from further discussion on the various issues, since they would prejudice the rights of the parties. It is clarified that nothing in the course of this judgment shall be construed as an expression on the merits of the contention of either party, and it is open to the petitioner to seek such remedies as are available to it under law, including proceedings under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, or proceedings under Section 29, or seek a separate reference.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, the contempt notice is discharged. Consequently, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.