CLCON/99/2017
2021 Latest Caselaw 66 UK

CLCON No. 99 of 2017
Hon'ble Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.

List revised. None appears for the petitioner to press the Contempt Petition. Even yesterday also, when the Contempt Petition was taken up, the counsel for the petitioner was absent. Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate, is present for the respondent. Since being a Contempt Petition, it cannot be dismissed for want of prosecution, since being a proceeding between the Court and the alleged contemnor, hence, this Contempt Petition is being proceeded to be decided on its own merits.

The petitioner has sought an enforcement of the judgment dated 13th January, 2017, which was rendered in Writ Petition No.1759 of 2012 (M/S), Govind Ballabh Pant, University of Agriculture and Technology, Pant Nagar, District Udham Singh Nagar Vs. Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Kashipur and another.

As a consequence of the judgment, which was rendered by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, the Writ Petition, which was preferred by the respondent was dismissed, and as a consequence, thereto, the order of retrenchment, which was set aside by the Labour Court in an award, rendered on 13th July, 2019, in an Adjudication Case No. 51 of 2008, was set aside.

Being aggrieved against the said judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 13th January, 2017, it had been argued by the learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, that they have approached the Hon'ble Apex Court by way of preferring an SLP, being SLP No. 15226-15227 of 2017, and the said SLP was taken up before the Hon'ble Apex Court on 16th January, 2018, and on the basis of the statement made by the learned Senior Counsel, who was appearing for the respondents, the SLP itself was decided and the award rendered by the Labour Court for retrenchment was set aside and in an alternative, the workman was granted the payment of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Hon'ble Apex Court on 16.01.2018, had issued the following orders :-

"During the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondent offers for payment of reasonable amount of compensation in lieu of reinstatement. Since the service was rendered for some time, in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be appropriate to direct payment of Rs.1,00,000/-

(Rupees one lakh) in lieu of reinstatement and backwages. Let the amount be paid within a period of one month from the date of passing this order. Impugned order is accordingly modified."

In view of the aforesaid, the Contempt Petition has lost its significance, hence, the same is closed.

Notices issued to the respondents are hereby discharged.

(Sharad Kumar Sharma, J.) Dated 07.01.2021 Shiv