Delhi High Court
Elass Massey vs M. S. Rama Chandran & Ors. on 23 August, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Contempt Case (C) No. 28 of 2005
+ Date of order 23rd August, 2012
# Elass Massey .......Petitioner
Through: None
versus
$ M. S. Rama Chandran & ORS. ......Respondents
Through: Mr. V.N. Kaura, Advocate for R-3
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K. BHASIN
ORDER
P.K.BHASIN, J
The petitioner herein was one of the petitioners in
W.P.(C) No. 8858 of 2005 which had been filed by some
persons who were claiming that they were the employees of
Indian Oil Corporation though they were recruited through
contractors. It was claimed by them that they were employed
to do work at the two Guest Houses of Indian Oil Corporation
in Delhi and that even though the contractors had been
changing but the petitioners-workmen were retained
uninterruptedly for performing the duties for which they were
initially employed and which work was of perennial nature.
2. Since the workmen employed through the contractors
were not getting the service benefits which the employees
directly employed by Indian Oil Corporation were getting
they raised an industrial dispute for their
regularization/absorption by Indian Oil Corporation but since
the Government was referring the dispute to the industrial
tribunal they That industrial dispute came to be referred for
adjudication to the industrial tribunal they filed the above
referred writ petition in this Court against Union of India,
Indian Oil Corporation and two of its contractors for a
direction to the Government to make a reference to the
industrial in respect of their demand for their regularization
by Indian Oil Corporation. Since the workmen were also
apprehending the discontinuance of their services which they
were performing for years they also sought a direction to the
management of Indian Oil Corporation and the concerned
contractors of that time, who were impleaded as respondents
no. 4 and 5 in the writ petition, not to terminate their services
during the pendency of their dispute for their regularization
or till the time of making of the reference of that dispute to
the industrial tribunal. In that writ petition this Court had
passed an order on 27.05.2004 directing that status quo as on
that date shall be maintained.
3. In December, 2004 this contempt petition was filed by
the petitioner against the then Chairman of Indian Oil
Corporation (respondent no.1 herein) and four of its
managers(respondents no. 2- 5 herein) and the concerned
contractor at that time(respondent no.6 herein), who appears
to have replaced the earlier one M/s Dee Sons Maintenance in
December, 2004, alleging that they had committed contempt
of this Court by violating the order of status quo passed in the
main writ petition on 27.05.2004.
4. Since during the pendency of the writ petition the
Central Government made a reference to the Central
Government Industrial Tribunal the workmen withdrew their
writ petition 16.12.2011.
5. The relevant paras of this contempt petition are re-
produced below:-
"II) That the workers / applicants are also provided a
residential accommodation in the said guest house and on
10/12/2004 the contemnors/ respondents no 3 to 5 on
10.12.2004 threatened the workers that they should vacate the
said premise to night and if they will not vacate the said
premises then they will get it evicted by force with the help of
their guards and the men of the new contractor this is classic
contractors. That the applicant workers along with other
workers reported this matter to the Police and
III) That since 10/12/2004 the management of the Indian Oil
corporation is not allowing the applicant workmen to mark
their attendance and is not allowing them to perform their
duties. That the workers in order to keep track of their
attendance are maintaining their own attendance register.
IV) That the workers / applicants were given their food in the
guest house itself and it was also a part of their service
condition but now the management is not giving them food.
8) That it is humbly submitted on behalf of the petitioner /
applicants that some of them come from far of places and if
their services are terminated without any notice or warning
and if they are deprived of their residential accommodation
overnight then they will have to face extreme hardship and
they will be forced to live on streets.
9) That it is further submitted that otherwise also the services
of the applicants should not be terminated in view of the
Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme court in Bhavnagar
Municipality v/s All Bhai and Karim Bhai and ors( 1977-1 ,
LLJ , pg 407)."
6. Notice of this contempt petition was given to
respondents on 11th January, 2005. Appearance was made in
the matter by respondents no. 1 to 5 and a reply was given by
respondent no. 3 for self and also on behalf of other
respondents except the respondent no. 6, the contractor. It
appears from the reply of the respondents that though
respondent no. 6 was awarded the contract of Catering and
Maintenance of the Guest House at HUDCO in December,
2004 but that contract was terminated on 22nd January, 2005
because of unsatisfactory services being provided by it.
7. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondents 1 to 5 it
was denied that they had committed contempt of this Court
and on the contrary in was specifically pleaded that the
petitioner himself had refused to accept the offer made by the
new contractor, i.e. respondent no. 6 herein after the contract
of earlier contractor M/s. D. Sons Maintenance had expired.
8. Thereafter, this matter had simply been getting
adjourned from time to time along with main writ petition
which, as noticed already, was withdrawn by the workmen on
16/12/2011 as the main relief which was being claimed by
them had become infructuous because of the Government
having made the reference of the industrial dispute regarding
their demand of regularization for adjudication to the
Industrial Tribunal.
9. After the workmen had withdrawn their writ petition on
16th December, 2011, on which date the present contempt
petition was also listed, the petitioner herein stopped
appearing in the present contempt matter. That shows that
he did not want to pursue this contempt matter any further
and perhaps had no evidence to adduce to show that the
respondents had actually committed contempt of this Court.
in fact, it appears that this petition was filed only on an
apprehension of termination of his services and to keep some
kind of pressure on the respondents during the pendency of
the main writ petition.
10. This contempt petition is, therefore, dismissed.
P.K. BHASIN, J
August 23, 2012
