Delhi High Court
Manju Saxena vs Staurt Davis & Ors. on 27 July, 2012
Author: P.K.Bhasin
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% CONT. CASE No. (C) 743/2010
+ Date of Decision: 27th July, 2012
# MANJU SAXENA ....Petitioner
! Through: Petitioner in person.
Versus
$ STAURT DAVIS & ORS. ...Respondents
Through: Mr. Sandeep Sethi, Sr.
Advocate with Mr. Syed Naqvi, Mr.
P.P. Kanwar & Ms. Namrata Kapoor
Sharma, Advocates for HSBC
CORAM:
* HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.K.BHASIN
JUDGMENT
P.K.BHASIN, J:
This contempt petition had been filed by Ms. Manju
Saxena, who is the respondent in writ petition no. W.P.(C)
No. 11344/2009, against three officers of the writ petitioner,
Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.('the
Bank' in short) under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971 for wilful disobedience of the order dated
03.09.2009 passed by this Court in the said writ petition
which was filed against the award dated 01.06.2009 of the
Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour
Court(CGIT) directing the Bank to reinstate the petitioner
herein with all consequential benefits including full back
wages after the termination of her services by the Bank w.e.f.
01.10.2005 was found to be illegal. Vide order dated
03.09.2009 the operation of the impugned award was stayed
subject to the petitioner bank depositing in Court the entire
amount payable under the award. Since the bank did not
make the full deposit, as per the petitioner, she filed this
contempt petition.
2. This Court vide order dated 14.11.2011 decided to take
cognizance, at first instance, only against the Bank and
accordingly after directing its impleadment it was ordered to
be served with a notice to show cause as to why it be not
proceeded against for having committed contempt of Court.
On being served with the show cause notice the Bank entered
appearance and submitted its reply alleging that no contempt
was committed by it.
3. The relevant facts are that when the Bank approached
this Court against the Award of CGIT it had sought stay of
operation of that Award directing it to reinstate the petitioner
herein with back wages etc. The writ petition as well as the
stay application(being C.M.No.10941/2009) were taken up
for preliminary consideration on 03.09.2009 and on that date
this Court passed an order staying the operation of the award
of the CGIT subject to the Bank depositing with the Registrar
General of this Court the award amount within six weeks.
The petitioner herein filed an application subsequently
claiming that the Bank had not made the deposit of the full
award amount of ` 33,19,096/- as had been calculated by the
Regional Labour Commissioner under Section 33(C)(1) of
the Industrial Disputes Act vide his order dated 31.08.2009.
This Court had on 22.10.2009 passed an order for deposit of
the balance amount by 23.10.2009 by the Bank. The
correctness of the figure worked out by Regional Labour
Commissioner was not disputed by the Bank. The Bank made
the deposit on 22.10.2009 according to its own calculations
but according to the petitioner herein, still full award amount
was not deposited and accordingly she informed the same to
this Court again and this Court vide order dated 19.08.2010
directed the Registry to submit a report in that regard and the
Registry in its report pointed out that the Bank had deposited
a sum of ` 25,19,096/- out of the total payable amount of `
33,19,096/-.
4. Thus, according to the petitioner herein since the Bank
had not deposited a sum of Rs.8 lacs out of the total award
amount it had committed contempt of this Court.
5. The banks' response is that the petitioner had herself
admitted before this Court on 22.10.2009 that she had already
received a sum of eight lacs and accordingly the balance
money was deposited in Court after adjusting the payment of
eight lacs of rupees and, therefore, there remained no short
fall in the deposit which the Bank was to make. Mr. Sandeep
Sethi, learned senior counsel for the Bank, had contended that
the petitioner herein had filed an LPA against the order dated
22.10.2009, wherein her admission of receipt of eight lacs
was recorded, but that appeal was dismissed by the Division
Bench. Mr. Sethi also submitted that the petitioner had not
disclosed in this contempt application the admission which
she had made before this Court regarding the receipt of
payment of eight lacs of rupees and, in any event, Mr. Sethi
further contended, the Bank could not be held guilty of
contempt of Court by not making the full deposit in Court in
compliance of the conditional stay order passed by this Court
on 03.09.2009 when operation of the impugned award of
CGIT was stayed and at the most it could be said that there
was no stay in operation and the petitioner's only remedy was
to execute the award. In support of this submission Mr. Sethi
cited one decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
"Prithawal Nath vs State of Jharkhand", AIR 2004
Supreme Court 4277. Mr. Sethi also submitted that this
application had simply been filed to blackmail the Bank and
should be dismissed with exemplary costs so that the
petitioner does not even think of filing such frivolous
applications in future and also that she should be proceeded
against for concealing material facts from this Court.
6. The petitioner herein, who has been fighting her battle
in person, contended that the amount of eight lacs which she
had admitted to have received before this Court was the
payment which was payable to her by the Bank in compliance
of the order dated 18.03.2009 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court
where the Bank had challenged the interim award dated
30.06.2006 of the CGIT passed in her favour directing it to
pay to her ` 30,000/- p.m. during the pendency of the
reference proceedings and that even that money could be
recovered only by attachment of the account of the Bank as it
was not paid voluntarily by the Bank. It was also submitted
by her that the amount of eight lacs was to be adjusted only in
case she had lost in this litigation and not otherwise as per the
clear observation of the Supreme Court in its order dated
18.03.2009 and so that money could not be adjusted by the
Bank while complying with the direction of this Court given
to the Bank for depositing in Court the entire amount payable
under the award of CGIT.
7. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had admittedly passed an
order directing the Bank to pay to the petitioner herein a lump
sum payment of ` 8 lacs on account of arrears payable under
the interim award of CGIT while maintaining that award
which had earlier been affirmed by this Court also when it
was challenged by the Bank. The Supreme Court had ordered
that in case the petitioner herein would lose finally the
amount under the interim award shall be adjusted towards her
retiral benefits. However, she has finally won the first round
of the legal battle with her employer. Therefore, the amount
of eight lacs of rupees which she had received on account of
arrears of wages under the interim award pursuant to the
orders of the Supreme Court could validly be adjusted by the
Bank while depositing in this Court the award amount
worked out by the Regional Labour Commissioner, after this
Court had permitted it to make the deposit by 23.10.2009
even though initially the deposit was to be made within six
weeks vide earlier order dated 03.09.2009. Therefore, the
Bank cannot be said to have committed contempt of this
Court. In case, the submission of the petitioner is accepted
that would mean that she would get eight lacs over and above
what actually was payable to her under the final award of
CGIT as her back wages. That submission however cannot be
accepted since the Supreme Court had not ordered that if she
would succeed also finally the amount of eight lacs of rupees
would remain with her without being adjusted towards her
back wages in case the same were ordered to be paid to her
by CGIT while passing the final award.
8. This contempt petition being frivolous is dismissed with
costs of ` 25,000/-.
P.K. BHASIN, J
JULY 27, 2012
