Ram Lakhan Shrma vs Shri Sandeep Makan
2021 Latest Caselaw 4815 MP

                                     1                Conc.3264.2019

              The High Court of Madhya Pradesh
                       Conc.3264.2019
      (Ram Lakhan Sharma Vs. Shri Sandeep Makan & Anr.)

Gwalior dated 31.08.2021

      Shri Prashant Sharma, learned counsel for petitioner.

      Shri Vivek Khedkar, learned counsel for respondents.

Heard through video conferencing.

1. This petition filed u/Art.215 of the Constitution r/w Secs.10 &

12 of Contempt of Courts Act alleges deliberate disobedience of the

directions contained in the order dated 19.08.2019 passed in

WA.1125/2019.

2. By order dated 19.08.2019 passed in WA.1125/2019, this Court

dismissed the said appeal in terms of the order passed in an appeal

involving similar facts and grounds i.e. WA.559/2019 [Municipal

Corporation, Gwalior Vs. Surendra Singh Yadav] vide order dated

05.04.2019.

3. Bare facts reveal that the petitioner was initially engaged as a

Pump Attendant in June, 2007 and after continuing in service in the

Department of Public Health & Engineering at Gwalior, his services

were terminated by an oral order dated 30.03.2011. On assailing his

termination before the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior, award dated

04.02.2017 was passed declaring the termination to be falling in the

category of unlawful retrenchment with direction for reinstatement

without backwages. Aggrieved, the employer preferred MP.3391/2018

which was dismissed on merits by the Single Bench of this Court vide

order dated 12.03.2019 by imposing cost of Rs.5,000/- upon the

employer to be paid to petitioner.

2 Conc.3264.2019

4. Thus, the order of Single Bench passed on 12.03.2019 became

the subject matter of WA.1125/2019 which was also dismissed by

order dated 19.08.2019, the disobedience of which is alleged herein.

5. The respondents have preferred an application seeking

dismissal of this contempt petition on the ground that there is no

direction in the order dated 19.08.2019 in WA.1125/2019 and further

that there was no direction by the Single Bench while dismissing

MP.3391/2018. It is further submitted by the respondents that the cost

of Rs.5,000/- has been paid vide cheque C-2 dated 28.02.2020.

6. True it is that neither the order dated 19.08.2019 passed in

WA.1125/2019 nor the order dated 12.03.2019 passed in

MP.3391/2018 contained any direction except payment of cost but the

fact remains that both these orders passed in WA and as well as Misc.

Petition confirmed the award of Labour Court-I, Gwalior dated

04.02.2017 by which direction was issued for reinstatement without

backwages.

7. Indisputably, petitioner has not been reinstated yet and the

employer has raised the plea of petitioner not availing alternative,

statutory remedy of filing contempt against the Competent Authority

under the relevant provisions of Industrial Disputes Act.

8. Technically speaking the respondents are correct but for

rendering justice, be it in the limited contempt jurisdiction, especially

in a case of a workman belonging to Class IV category who is a low

paid employee this Court can very well issue directions which have

already been given by the Labour Court No.1, Gwalior after due

adjudication and subsequently affirmed by this Court. Issuance of such 3 Conc.3264.2019

direction would, in fact, lead to rendering of complete justice, which is

one of the primary functions of a superior court.

9. Passing of a direction in this contempt petition is not akin to

passing a fresh direction but merely reiterating the findings of the

Labour Court which have received the stamp of approval of the Single

and as well as Division Bench of this Court. This course of action is

permissible in view of the verdict of the Apex Court in the case of

"Sudhir Vasudeva, Chairman And Managing Director, Oil And

Natural Gas Corporation Limited And Others Vs. M. George

Ravishekaran And Others [(2014) 3 Superme Court 373], relevant

portion of which is reproduced below for ready reference and

convenience:

"19. The power vested in the High Courts as well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and rare power available both under the Constitution as well as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the individual charged with commission of contempt. The very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. This is also necessary as, more often than not, adjudication of a contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which disobedience is alleged. The Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or order or are plainly self evident ought to be taken into account for the purpose of 4 Conc.3264.2019

consideration as to whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure that while considering a contempt plea the power available to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or appeal is not trenched upon. No order or direction supplemental to what has been already expressed should be issued by the Court while exercising jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law; such an exercise is more appropriate in other jurisdictions vested in the Court, as noticed above. The above principles would appear to be the cumulative outcome of the precedents cited at the bar, namely, Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another vs. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others [(2002) 5 SCC 352], V.M. Manohar Prasad vs. N. Ratnam Raju and Another [(2004) 13 SCC 610], Bihar Finance Service House Construction Coop. Society Ltd. vs. Gautam Goswami and Others [(2008) 5 SCC 339] and Union of India and Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV[(2006) 1 SCC 613]."

10. Accordingly, this Court while dropping Rule Nisi issued against

respondents directs the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,

Gwalior (M.P.) to reinstate the petitioner in terms of the award dated

04.02.2017 of Labour Court No.1, Gwalior as expeditiously as

possible, preferably within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt

of copy of this order.

                                                  (Sheel Nagu)                       (Deepak Kumar Agarwal)
                                                     Judge                                   Judge

                                pd

PAWAN
        Digitally signed by PAWAN
        DHARKAR
        DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF
        MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
        GWALIOR, ou=HIGH COURT OF


DHARK   MADHYA PRADESH BENCH
        GWALIOR, postalCode=474011,
        st=Madhya Pradesh,
        2.5.4.20=345b3604d572ed9dd149



AR
        2fe82dc3b1eef67eff2cb59f3ac97e
        920ac264de7828, cn=PAWAN
        DHARKAR
        Date: 2021.09.01 11:07:01 +05'30'