Bhavnaben Dharamsinhbhai ... vs Pushpendrasing M. Chauhan
2023 Latest Caselaw 4934 Guj

       C/MCA/998/2023                            ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023




             IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
                 R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 998 of 2023
==========================================================
                  BHAVNABEN DHARAMSINHBHAI VACHHANI
                                Versus
                      PUSHPENDRASING M. CHAUHAN
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR PJ MEHTA(467) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
     CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
           and
           HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY
                      Date : 27/06/2023
                       ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The present contempt application has been filed seeking the following prayers : -

"(A) Be pleased to hold that the Respondent Registrar of the University has committed Contempt of the Court by willful disobeying the Award of Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot of Ref.No.IT 171/2015 dated 20/12/2022;

(B) During the pendency of present petition be pleased to direct Respondent for compliance of regular pay scale in favour of the Applicant forthwith of her monthly salary;

(C) Be pleased to pass appropriate order for punishing the Respondent Registrar U/s 10 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 in the interest of justice;

(D) Be pleased to award compensatory cost of Rs.10,000/- for reformation of willful disobedience of Registrar. "

2. The Tribunal in the aforesaid reference, vide judgment and award dated 20.12.2022 had directed the respondent - authority to grant regular pay-scale. Since no benefits were paid arising from the judgment and award, the captioned contempt application has been filed by the present

C/MCA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023

applicant - original respondent No.1. under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Mehta appearing for the applicant has submitted that the respondent - authority is bound to implement and grant the benefits accrued from the award dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Tribunal. It is submitted that for the aforesaid action of not granting the benefits of the judgment and award, and, it is urged that the contempt proceedings may be initiated against the respondent authority for not implementing the judgment and award passed by the Tribunal.

4. The only issue, which needs deliberation is with regard to the maintainability of the present application, which is filed seeking initiation of the contempt proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. As noted hereinabove, the applicant has been granted the benefits of regular pay-scale vide judgment and award dated 20.12.2022 passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Rajkot in Reference (IT) No.171 of 2015.

5. The Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kishorebhai Dahyabhai Solanki Vs. Nagjibhai Muljibhai Patel, 2002 (2) G.L.H 754, after survey of various judgments, has held thus :-

"25. In view of the above it is clear that under I.D. Act itself there is inbuilt mechanism provided for the purpose of enforcement and execution of awards passed by the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals and the award passed by the Labour Court is more or less at par with the decrees of the Civil Court but the only distinction is that the monetary benefits of the award or the settlement is only to be recovered under Land Revenue Code whereas in the decree of Civil Court the other modes are also permissible. Further, non- compliance of award would invite criminal prosecution.

However, providing for the recovery under the Land Revenue Code is made a vigorous mode of recovery and

C/MCA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023

therefore it is clear that in the Act itself sufficient and enough measures have been provided for execution of award.

26. At this stage, a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, reported in 2000 (4) SCC 400 wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question regarding initiation of proceedings under the Contempt Act when the award passed by the competent Court under Land Acquisition Act is not complied with. The High Court had initiated proceedings under Contempt Act and directed the appellants to deposit the amount of compensation and thereafter the Collector had moved application to the High Court for vacating the rule issued in the contempt proceedings. However, the High Court directed that the application made by the Collector to be heard with appeal against which the appellant moved the Apex Court. The Apex Court observed as under:

"We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of the Court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, - an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the Court..... Further the decree holder who does not take steps to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the Court for non-satisfaction of the money decree."

27. In the above view of the matter, it is clear that the power of the Contempt Act should not be considered as that of executing Court nor the Court should normally not exercise the power when the party to the award or decree has alternative remedy also for the purpose of implementing or executing the decree or award. It is clarified that we do not hold that such measures of providing alternative remedy for execution of the award or decree operates as bar for exercising powers of this Court under the Contempt Act. However, at the same time, when the Act itself in the present case I.D. Act provides sufficient and effective measures for execution of the award, normally this

C/MCA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023

Court relegate the party concerned who are petitioners in the present case to resort to such remedies provided under the Act for implementation and execution of the award. In view of the above circumstances as mentioned and narrated in case of Bipinchandra (supra) and Shankerpuri (supra) cannot be said to be in existence as on today coupled with the fact that the law is laid down subsequently by the Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra (supra) and in case of R.N. Dey (supra).

28. In the above view of the matter, we are not inclined to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as sought to be canvassed by the petitioners and the petitioners may approach appropriate authority of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for execution and implementation of awards."

6. Thus, the Division Bench has by placing reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court has categorically held that since the I.D.Act provides sufficient and effective measures for execution of the award and, since there is an inbuilt mechanism provided under the I.D.Act for the enforcement and execution of the awards passed by the Labour Courts under the provision of section 29 read with section 34 and, 33-C , it is not mandatory for the High Court to invoke the powers under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Subsequently, the Division Bench, in the order dated 17.06.2008 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.1693 of 2008 in Special Civil Application No.7139 of 2005, after considering the judgment in the case of Kishorebhai Dahyabhai Solanki (supra), has reiterated the view by observing thus : -

"xxx...

28. In the above view of the matter, we are not inclined to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as sought to be canvassed by the petitioners and the petitioners may approach appropriate authority or the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for execution and implementation of awards."

Even the decision upon which reliance is placed by learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of

C/MCA/998/2023 ORDER DATED: 27/06/2023

Bipinchandra P.Singwala (supra) is considered. Therefore, considering the above referred decision of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of K.D.Solanki (supra), we are not inclined to take a different view than the one taken by the Division Bench of this Court which is binding to this Court. Further in any case, the aforesaid decision in the case of Binpinchandra P.Singwala (supra) was considered and therefore it is not a case where disagreement deserves to be recorded for referring the matter to the Larger Bench. In any case, the decision of a coordinate Bench of this Court which is a recent decision is binding to this Bench. 7. It is not a matter where there is no remedy available to the petitioner for implementation or enforcement of the award of the Labour Court. When there is an inbuilt mechanism provided under the Act for enforcement of the award passed by the Labour Court, we are not inclined to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act at this stage."

7. Thus, the applicant has an alternative remedy of filing an application before the Labour Court under the provisions of the I.D. Act as per the law enunciated by the Division Bench as mentioned hereinabove.

8. Hence, as per the law enunciated by the Division Bench, the present contempt application is not maintainable. However, it is clarified that, the applicant may resort to any other remedy available under the law for seeking benefits arising from the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court.

9. In view of the above, the present application is rejected.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J)

Sd/-

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) ABHISHEK/29