Gujarat High Court

Mahedersinh Bhikhubha Jadeja vs Nandiniben Umeshbhai Bahari on 22 February, 2023

Bench: Niral R. Mehta

    C/MCA/1029/2019                             ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023




          IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

              R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1029 of 2019
          In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20472 of 2016
                                 With
              R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1033 of 2019
                                   In
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20459 of 2016
                                 With
              R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1034 of 2019
                                   In
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 19185 of 2016
                                 With
              R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1035 of 2019
                                   In
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 8187 of 2017
                                 With
              R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1031 of 2019
                                   In
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20465 of 2016
                                 With
              R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1030 of 2019
                                   In
             SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 20142 of 2016
==========================================================
                      MAHEDERSINH BHIKHUBHA JADEJA
                                  Versus
                       NANDINIBEN UMESHBHAI BAHARI
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA(3605) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR RAJ TANNA, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
NOTICE SERVED for the Opponent(s) No. 2
==========================================================

 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE NIRAL R. MEHTA

                           Date : 22/02/2023

               COMMON ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N.V.ANJARIA)

Heard learned advocate Mr.T.R. Mishra for the applicants and learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Raj Tanna for the respondent - State and its authorities.

C/MCA/1029/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023

2. The applicants have invoked jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 seeking to punish the alleged contemnor for not complying with common order dated 23rd January, 2018 passed by this Court in Special Civil Application No.19183 of 2016 and allied allied petitions. It is further prayed to direct the respondents to purge the contempt of the said common order.

3. The present contempt proceedings have the history of previous proceedings. Looking at the facts in the backdrop, Labour Court No.2, Jamnagar, delivered judgment and award dated 04th March, 2016 whereby the applicants-workmen were directed to be reinstated in service on original post with continuity of service but without back wages. The workmen were serving as Ward Servants since last eight years and had rendered continuous service as per their case. The said judgment and award was challenged by the employer by filing Special Civil Application NO.19183 of 2016 and group of petitions.

3.1 Learned Single Judge by common order dated 23 rd January, 2018 upheld the judgment and award of the Labour Court to conclude that Labour Court did not commit any error in granting the relief of reinstatement and continuity of service. It appears that right to receive back wages were given up by the workmen before learned Single Judge.

3.2 Consequently, following final directions were passed by learned Single Judge disposing of the petitions.

C/MCA/1029/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023

"... However, since the workmen in whose favour back wages have been granted and who have filed affidavits before this Court stating therein that they are foregoing their rights about the back wages, the impugned awards qua the said effect is required to be modified. Hence, the awards wherein back wages are granted the said direction is hereby quashed and set aside. It is hereby held that the workmen are not entitled for any back wages. Rest of the awards remain as it is."

3.3 In respect of the said directions, contempt proceedings in the nature of Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1086 of 2018 and allied applications were initiated, which culminated into order of the Division Bench dated 30 th November, 2018.

3.4 Following order came to be passed.

"2. It is not in dispute that pursuant to the award dated 04.03.2016 passed by the learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 2, Jamnagar in Reference TLC No. 47 of 2006, the employees were directed to be reinstated with continuity of service without backwages and in paragraph no.15 of the common oral order dated 23.01.2018 passed in Special Civil Application Gujarat No. 19183 of 2016 preferred by the State of challenging the above award, the same was confirmed. So far as the case of workmen whether backwages was awarded such directions were quashed and set aside. Now it is not in dispute that all the workmen are reinstated by the authority as per order passed in the month of October 2018 and separate statement in this regard is produced on record.

3. For the remaining grievances of these applicants for payment of wages from the date of award to the date of reinstatement, appropriate decision shall be taken by the competent authority within four weeks from the receipt of this order.

C/MCA/1029/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023

We dispose of all these contempt applications accordingly."

3.5 While the proceedings of contempt were disposed of as above, it appears that at a later point of time, Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1 of 2019 and others were filed by the workmen seeking to recall the said order dated 30th November, 2018. The said applications were not entertained. The Division Bench, however, observed that in respect of the payment of wages from the date of award till the date of reinstatement contained in order dated 23 rd January, 2018, it will be open for the applicants to file fresh petitions under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. That is how the present proceedings are filed and have come up for consideration before this Court.

4. Noticing from order dated 30th November, 2018 aforementioned, therein it was observed that for the remaining grievance of the applicants in respect of payment of wages from the date of award till the date of reinstatement, respondent authorities were directed to take appropriate decision. In the contempt proceedings then initiated resulting into the aforesaid observations, it was the grievance of the applicants that they were reinstated after a gap of more than two years from the date of judgment and award of the Labour Court. It was the say that for such interregnum, the authorities were bound to pay wages to the workmen and that non-payment amounted to commission of contempt.

4.1 Figures on the record of the present proceedings order dated 22nd September, 2019 passed pursuant to

C/MCA/1029/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023

aforesaid observations of the Division Bench in order dated 30th November, 2018, whereby the workmen were considered not entitled to receive the wages for the said period, namely from the date of judgment and award of the Labour Court till the date of reinstatement. It was on the footing that during the said period none of them had worked and had not discharged the duties.

5. This Court, taking up the contempt proceedings, is not concerned with the reasons supplied for refusing the wages to the workmen for the said period. The only point of focus is whether by not giving the wages for the said period and by passing aforesaid order dated 22 nd September, 2019 the respondents can be said to have committed contempt.

5.1 In this regard, revisiting with the facts, the directions of the Labour Court were to reinstate the workmen without back wages and with continuity of service. There was no further direction. When Miscellaneous Civil Application No.1086 of 2018 and others were initiated which resulted into order dated 30th November, 2018, the only direction to the authority was to take appropriate decision. Such decision came to be taken as per above order dated 22 nd September, 2019.

6. It was argued in vain by learned advocate for the applicants that while passing order in the recall applications, the Court has permitted the applicants to invoke jurisdiction of the Court under the Contempt of Courts Act for getting such benefit. Merely because the observation is made by the

C/MCA/1029/2019 ORDER DATED: 22/02/2023

Court permitting the applicants to file contempt petition, it cannot be equated to the situation that the respondents have committed contempt.

6.1 On examination of facts and the nature of directions and the situation obtained, the Court is the view that there are no directions which may provide room to contend by the applicants that they are not complied with and the contempt of court is committed.

7. No case is made out. Applications are dismissed. If the applicants are of the view that order dated 22 nd September, 2019 is questionable on its merits, the applicants are not precluded from instituting appropriate independent proceedings to be considered in accordance with law.

Notice in each application is discharged.

(N.V.ANJARIA, J)

(NIRAL R. MEHTA,J) ANUP