Gujarat High Court
Harijan Maganbhai Jethabhai vs Sarpanch , Vaso Gram Panchayat on 29 January, 2024
Author: Biren Vaishnav
Bench: Biren Vaishnav
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 167 of 2024
==========================================================
HARIJAN MAGANBHAI JETHABHAI
Versus
SARPANCH , VASO GRAM PANCHAYAT
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR CHINTAN P GOHEL(6195) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR. VISHAL P THAKKER(7079) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV
and
HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE NISHA M. THAKORE
Date : 29/01/2024
ORAL ORDER
(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIREN VAISHNAV)
1. Mr.Vishal Thakkar learned advocate for the
applicant in pressing for an order under the
Contempt of Courts Act would rely on the
decision of this Court in case of Jaisinh
Jodhabhai Vaisya and Grofed Employees
Union v. Laxmanbhai Arshibhai Zala reported
in 2001 GLH (2) 68. It has been brought to the
notice of this Court that a coordinate bench of
this Court on 19.06.2023 considering the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
aforesaid decision, passed the following order:
"1. The present contempt application has been
filed seeking the following prayers : -
"(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
initiate proceedings of contempt under
The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against
the respondents and be pleased to punish
the respondents for committing civil
contempt, in the interest of justice;
(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
declare that order passed by this Hon'ble
Court in Special Civil Application 11670 of
2014 (Annexure A), be operated and
executed, and any acts of the respondent
may not confer any right in favour of the
present applicant in any manner
whatsoever, in the interest of justice and
equity;
(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to
pass directions to the respondent to
regularize the services of the applicant
herein, with all consequential benefits,
which includes the arrears of salary from
the date of entitlement of the benefits of
regularization"
2. The applicant - original respondent No.1 of
the captioned writ petition has filed the present
application primarily seeking a prayer of
implementation of the judgment and award
dated 11.04.2014 passed by Presiding Officer,
Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB)
No.91 of 2008, which was assailed by the
respondent - State authorities by way of the
captioned writ petition. The Labour Court,
Bhavnagar in the aforesaid reference, vide
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
judgment and award dated 11.04.2014 had
directed the respondent - State authorities to
reinstate the applicant on his original post with
continuity of service along with 30 % back
wage. The respondent - State authorities
assailed the same in the captioned writ
petition, which was dismissed by the order
dated 15.02.2023 by the learned Single Judge.
Since the benefits of the award was not paid,
the present applicant requested the respondent
- State authorities to pay the same by his
representation dated 07.03.2023. Since no
benefits were paid arising from the judgment
and award, the captioned contempt application
has been filed by the present applicant -
original respondent No.1. under the Contempt
of Courts Act, 1971.
3. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Thakker,
appearing for the applicant has submitted that
the respondent - State authorities is bound to
implement and grant the benefits accrued from
the award dated dated 11.04.2014 passed by
the Labour Court after the writ petition filed by
the State authorities has been dismissed vide
order dated 15.02.2023. It is submitted that the
aforesaid action of not granting the benefits of
the judgment and award, even after dismissal
of the writ petition is contemptuous and hence,
it is urged that the contempt proceedings may
be initiated against the respondent authorities
for not implementing the judgment and award
passed by the Labour Court.
4. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government
Pleader Mr.Gupta, appearing for the
respondent - State authorities has submitted
that the present contempt application is not
maintainable as the applicant has an
alternative efficacious remedy of execution of
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
the award under the provisions of the Industrial
Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D.Act). While placing
reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court
in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s. Oswal
Woollen Mills Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1264, it is
submitted that since this Court in the order
dated 15.02.2023 has not issued any specific
directions with regard to time limit, in which,
the award or order is to be complied with, the
contempt application is not maintainable.
5. In response to the aforesaid submissions
advanced by the learned AGP, learned advocate
Mr.Vishal Thakker has placed reliance on the
judgment of the Apex Court in the case of
Rama Narang Vs. Ramesh Narang and Anr.,
2006 AIR (SC) 1883, more particularly
paragraph No.26 thereof and has submitted
that merely because an order and decree is
executable, the same would not take away the
Court's jurisdiction to deal with a matter under
the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (the Act),
provided the Court is satisfied that the violation
of the order or decree is such, that if proved, it
would warrant punishment under Section 13 of
the Act on the ground that the contempt
substantially interferes or to interfere with the
due course of justice. Reliance is also placed by
the learned advocate Mr.Vishal Thakker, on the
judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in
the case of Jaisinh Jodhabhai Vaisya & Grofed
Employees Union Vs. Laxman Arshibhai Zala,
2001 (2) G.L.H. 68. Thus, it is submitted in
context of the contemptuous jurisdiction of the
High Court that the present application is
maintainable.
6. We have heard the learned advocates
appearing for the respective parties.
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
7. 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 the reinstatement along with
continuity of service and 30% back wages vide
judgment and award dated 11.04.2014 passed
by the Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference
(LCB) No.91 of 2008. The said judgment and
award was assailed by the respondent - State
authorities by filing the captioned writ petition
being Special Civil Application No.11670 of
2014, which was dismissed by this Court, by
observing thus : -
"10. In view of the aforesaid observations
and in the facts of the present case, this
Court is of the opinion that the impugned
judgment and award passed by the learned
Labour Court, Bhavnagar, is just and
proper. No interference is called for. The
present Special Civil Application is devoid
of merits and is dismissed with no order as
to costs. Notice discharged."
8. Thus, while dismissing the captioned writ
petition, the learned Single Judge has not
issued any directions with regard to
implementation of the judgment and award of
the Labour Court within some specific time
limit.
9. At this stage, it would be refer to the
decision of the Supreme Court in the case of
Union of India Vs. M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills
Ltd., AIR 1984 S.C. 1264, the Apex Court has
observed thus : -
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
"7. In regard to the rule for contempt of
court, we find it difficult to sustain the
same. Though ordinarily we would have left
the matter to be decided by the High Court,
we think it unnecessary to do so in the
present case having regard to the elaborate
arguments addressed to us by both parties.
The complaint of the writ petitioners in
seeking the rule for contempt of court was
that the authorities had not dealt with their
applications for licences, etc. despite the
`abeyance' order having been stayed. It is
obvious that the stay of the operation of the
`abeyance' order merely meant that the
writ petitioners were entitled to have their
applications disposed of by the concerned
authorities. The High Court not having set
any limit of time for the disposal of the
applications, it was not for the writ
petitioners to impose a time limit and
demand that their applications should be
disposed, of forthwith. If the writ petitioners
were aggrieved by the failure of their
authorities to dispose of their applications
expeditiously, it was open to them to seek a
further direction from the court to fixing a
limit of time within which the applications
were to be disposed of. We fail to see how
the Chief Controller of Imports & Exports or
the Deputy Chief Controller of Imports &
Exports could be said to have committed
any contempt of court, even prima facie, by
their mere failure to take action in the
matter of the disposal of the applications of
the writ petitions. In the circumstances, we
perceive the application to commit the
authorities for contempt of court to be a
device to extract licences from them."
10. Thus, as per the observations made by the
Supreme Court, while examining the
proceedings under the Contempt of Court Acts,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
in those cases where the High Court has not set
any time limit for disposal, if the parties are
aggrieved by the failure of the authority to take
decisions, the appropriate remedy would be to
such party to seek further directions from the
Court fixing the limit of time and the
proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act,
would be not maintainable.
11. There is yet another aspect, which refers to
be dealt with is with regard to availability of an
alternative remedy to the applicant for
implementation and execution of the judgment
and award passed by the Labour Court.
12. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Thakker, has
placed reliance on the judgment of the Division
Bench in support of his submissions in the case
of Jaisinh Jodhabhai Vaisya (supra), the Division
Bench while examining the issue with regard to
the implementation of the awards of the
Tribunal, subordinate to the High Court
including Labour Court and Industrial Tribunal
has held that the High Court has power under
Article 215 of the Constitution of Indian and
under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, not
only for contempt of itself, but also for
contempt of all Courts and Tribunals
subordinate to it, including Labour Courts and
Industrial Tribunals. The Division Bench has
also referred to the decision of Alahar
Cooperative Credit Services Society Vs. Sham
Lal, 1995 (2) G.L.H. 550. The Division has
distinguished the aforesaid judgment of the
Supreme Court in the case of Alahar Co-
operative Credit Services Society (supra), by
observing that the Supreme Court has
thereafter in the case of State of Maharashtra
v. Labour Law Practitioners Association, AIR
1998 S.C. 1233, has subsequently held that the
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
Labour Court is Subordinate Court to the High
Court making them amenable to the control
jurisdiction of the High Court and hence, after
such declaration, the High Court has power to
punish the contemnors under Article 215 of the
Constitution of India and under the provisions
of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
13. After the aforesaid judgment was delivered
by the Division Bench, another 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, including the judgment
rendered in Jaisinh Jodhabhai Vaisya (supra),
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, noncompliance of award would
invite criminal prosecution. However,
providing for the recovery under the Land
Revenue Code is made a vigorous mode of
recovery and 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,
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
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
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."
14. Thus, the Division Bench has subsequently,
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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
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 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
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
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."
15. 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. Thus,
reliance placed by the learned advocate
Mr.Vishal Thakker, on the judgment of Rama
Narang (supra), will not rescue the case since
the observations made by the Apex Court, more
particularly in paragraph No.26, cannot be
read in isolation and has to be read in context
with the issue raised therein and the facts. The
facts of the case suggest that there was a
dispute between the two groups of members of
family with regard to violations of the consent
terms of the settlement and also willful
disobedience of the Supreme Courts' order
recording consent terms. The Apex Court has
made the observations in context of provision
of section 13 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
The same refers to the proceedings which
warrants punishment for the Act of Contempt
of Court, which substantially interferes, or
tends substantially to interfere with the due
course of justice.
16. In the present case, as noted hereinabove,
no directions are issued by the learned Single
Judge directing the respondent State
authorities to comply and give the benefits
arising from the award within some stipulated
NEUTRAL CITATION
C/MCA/167/2024 ORDER DATED: 29/01/2024
undefined
time and 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.
17. In view of the above, the present
application is rejected."
2. In view of the above order, present application
for contempt is not entertained.
(BIREN VAISHNAV, J)
(NISHA M. THAKORE,J)
ANKIT SHAH
