M/S Sun Pharmaceutical ... vs Mahesh Kumar Asnani S/O Sh. Chetan ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 580 Raj/2

Citation : 2023 Latest Caselaw 580 Raj/2
Judgement Date : 17 January, 2023

Rajasthan High Court

M/S Sun Pharmaceutical ... vs Mahesh Kumar Asnani S/O Sh. Chetan ... on 17 January, 2023

Bench: Sudesh Bansal

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7992/2022

M/s    Sun    Pharmaceutical         Industries        Limited,        Having     Its
Registered Office At Sun Pharma Advanced Research Company
(Sparc), Tandalja, Vadodara - 390020 Through Its Authorised
Signatory Sh. Sameer Suresh Darwhekar.
                                                                       ----Petitioner
                                   Versus
Mahesh Kumar Asnani S/o Sh. Chetan Asnani, Resident Of Flat
No. 145, Sector 15, Malviya Nagar, Jaipur.
                                                                  ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. R.B. Mathur, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Salim Khan Gori For Respondent(s) : Mr. Mahesh Kumar Asnani (present in person)

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL

Order

17/01/2023

1. Matter has come up on an application No.1/2022 under

under Article 226 (3) of Constitution of India for vacation of stay

order dated 27.05.2022.

2. Heard both the parties at length.

3. At the outset, it is not in dispute that the stay order dated

27.05.2022, staying the sanction for prosecution, accorded by the

Labour Commissioner vide impugned order dated 16.05.2022

(Annexure-2), was passed after hearing both parties and

respondent has already attain the age of superannuatio.

4. Further the respondent initiated proceedings under Section

29 read with Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947

(hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1947") before the Labour

(2 of 4) [CW-7992/2022]

Commissioner, alleging noncompliance of the judgment dated

12.07.2018 passed with consent of both parties in D.B. Special

Appeal (Writ) No.1067/2017 and D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ)

No.1066/2017.

5. It is not in dispute that initially respondent moved contempt

petition D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.2001/2018 and the same

was finally dismissed vide order dated dated 18.03.2021 with

following observations:-

"Thus, the argument of the petitioner is that he was called to report for duty on 3.9.2018 but this was a mere way to circumvent the compliance of this court's order dated 12.7.2018. He was humiliated at the Bombay Head Office of the Company. He was offered appointment as new employee which was against the mandate of the order of this Court. On the other hand, the case of respondents is that the petitioner, without any reasonable ground refusal to join his duties on 3.9.2018, but in view of overall facts, we are of the considered opinion that these are disputed questions of fact which cannot be gone into in this petition. Therefore, looking to the overall facts and circumstances of the case and particularly looking to the detailed affidavits submitted by the respondent, petitioner has not been able to prove wilfull disobedience of directions of this Court dated 12.7.2018. The order of this court passed by Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) Nos.1067/2017 and 1066/2017 has been complied with by the respondents. Hence, no ground for further interference is made out. Contempt petition is accordingly liable to be dismissed.

Consequently, the Contempt Petition is dismissed. Rule stands discharged. However, it is

(3 of 4) [CW-7992/2022]

clarified that the petitioner would be at liberty to seek appropriate remedy as per law in case he feels that some benefits due towards him, had not been granted"

6. It is also undisputed that respondent moved another

application being D.B. Civil Misc. Application No.65/2021, which

was decided vide order dated 22.09.2021 with following

observations:-

"Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant on instructions of the petitioner/applicant who is present in person has submitted that he may be permitted to withdraw the application.

Ordered accordingly.

However, it is clarified that any observations made in the order dated 18.03.2021 will not effect the merits of the appropriate remedy as per law, availed by the petitioner/applicant, in case he feels that some benefits due towards him, had not been granted."

7. Therefore, as far as the disobedience of Division Bench order

dated 12.07.2018 in respect of reinstatement is concerned, the

issue has finally been decided while dismissing the contempt

petition and respondent has been extended liberty to seek

appropriate remedy as per law in case he feels that some benefits

due towards him, had not been granted.

8. It has been stated that respondent has moved an application

under Section 33 (C) (2) of the Act of 1947 before the Labour

Court No.1 at Jaipur on 08.10.2021.

9. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that he has already

appeared in such proceedings of the application and proceedings

are underway.