Karnataka High Court
T W Hudson Prabhakar vs Mr. Suvarna Raj on 10 November, 2017
Bench: B.S Patil, B.V.Nagarathna
-: 1 :-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2017
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B.S. PATIL
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE B.V.NAGARATHNA
C.C.C. No.1467/2015 &
C.C.C. Nos.1524-1529/2015 (CIVIL)
BETWEEN:
1. T.W. HUDSON PRABHAKAR
S/O T. WILLIES,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.50/6,
JANA NIVAS BUILDING,
HAL 3RD STAGE, KODIHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 008.
2. DEVANESAN
S/O DEVARAJ,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.67, K.R. PALYA,
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS.
2(a) SAGAYA MARY D.
W/O LATE DEVANESAN,
AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS,
2(b) DENNIS
S/O LATE DEVANESAN,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
2(c) SEBASTIN
S/O LATE DEVANESAN,
2(d) EVANGELINE
D/O LATE DEVANESAN,
AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS,
ALL 2(a), 2(b), 2(c) & 2(d) ARE
RESIDING AT NO.67, K.R. PALYA,
-: 2 :-
COX TOWN, JEEVANAHALLI,
BANGALORE - 560 005.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER
DATED 01/04/2016)
3. SHEKAR
S/O RATHNA,
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS,
RESIDING AT MUDALIAR NO.84,
HANUMANTHAPURAM,
8TH CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 021.
DECEASED REP. BY HIS LRS.
3(a) RAJANI S.
D/O LATE SHEKAR,
AGED ABOUT 28 YEARS,
3(b) POORNIMA S.
D/O LATE SHEKAR,.
AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS,
BOTH RESIDING AT
MUDALIAR NO.84,
HANUMANTHAPURAM,
8TH CROSS, SRIRAMPURAM,
BANGALORE - 560 021.
(AMENDED AS PER ORDER
DATED 01/04/2016)
4. S. MARIA JOSEPH
S/O B.P. SUSAINATHAN,
AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS,
RESIDING AT NO.37,
NANJA REDDY COLONY,
MURUGESH PALYA, HAL,
BANGALORE - 560 017.
5. R. VENKATA SWAMY
S/O RAMAKRISHNAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS,
RESIDINGA AT NO.139/2,
ANNASANDRA PALYA,
HAL POST,
BANGALORE - 560 017.
-: 3 :-
6. M. RAMAKRISHNA
S/O MUNIYAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
RESIDINGA AT NO.76, G.M. PALYA,
NEW THIPPASANDRA POST,
BANGALORE - 560 075.
7. K. VENKATESULU
S/O K. CHANGAIAH NAIDU,
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS,
NO.272, 7TH CROSS,
SANJAYANAGAR,
HORTHALLI (P.O.),
BANGALORE - 560 001. ... COMPLAINANTS
(BY SRI: B.K. SAMPATH KUMAR, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. MR. SUVARNA RAJ,
AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR,
HINDUSTAN AERONAUTICS LTD.,
REGISTRED OFFICE : 15/1,
CUBBON ROAD,
BANGALORE - 01. ... ACCUSED
(BY SRI: PRADEEP S. SAWKAR, ADVOCATE)
*****
THESE CCCs ARE FILED UNDER SECTIONS 11 & 12 OF
THE CONTEMPT OF COURTS ACT, 1971, R/W ARTICLE 215 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, BY THE COMPLAINANT,
WHEREIN HE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BE
PLEASED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE OFFENCE OF CIVIL
CONTEMPT AGAINST ACCUSED FOR DISOBEYING THE COMMON
ORDER IN 20405-20424/1997 VIDE ORDER DATED 30.07.2002
VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS HAVING BEEN RESERVED ON
14/03/2017 AND THEY BEING LISTED FOR PRONOUNCEMENT
TODAY, NAGARATHNA J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
-: 4 :-
ORDER
The complainants have been working as drivers in different divisions of the respondent - Company, including the transport division. According to them, they were appointed as daily wage employees against permanent vacancies and were treated as casual labourers. They, along with others filed Writ Petition.Nos.20405-424/1997, seeking regularization of their services. The writ petitions were allowed on 30/07/2002 and a direction was issued to absorb them with certain benefits. The respondent - Company preferred Writ Appeal Nos.5402-5421/2002, which were dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 23/07/2009, on a memo filed by the respondent - Company, seeking withdrawal of the appeals. According to the complainants, as a result, the order passed in the writ petitions became final. A copy of the memo for withdrawal of the writ appeals is produced as Annexure "B" and the order passed thereon is at Annexure "C", to these contempt petitions.
-: 5 :-
2. The complainants thereafter, made representations to the respondent - Company, to consider their cases in accordance with the directions of the learned single Judge. That the complainants had filed an application to recall the order passed in the writ appeals, but the Division Bench did not grant any relief on the said application, which was disposed of by order dated 19/03/2015.
3. Being aggrieved by that order, complainants had preferred Special Leave Petition No.16776/2015, before the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The said Special Leave Petition was disposed of by order dated 08/07/2015, reserving liberty to the complainants herein to take appropriate proceedings for seeking enforcement of the judgment of the learned single Judge. The complainants thereafter, got issued legal notice dated 21/07/2015, to the respondent - Company, to which, respondent - Company replied on 06/08/2015. Thereafter, a rejoinder was also issued by the complainants on 26/08/2015, to which, there -: 6 :- was a reply issued by the respondent - Company on 25/09/2015. Copies of the said communications are at Annexures "N", "P", "Q", "R", to these contempt petitions. It is in the aforesaid background that the complainants have filed these contempt of court proceedings, alleging disobedience of the order dated 30/07/2002, passed by the learned single Judge, in Writ Petition Nos.20405-424/1997.
4. Statement of objections have been filed by the respondent - Company by contending that this is the second contempt petition filed by the complainants, who had earlier filed CCC.Nos.340- 346/2015, which were dismissed as withdrawn on 08/04/2015, reserving liberty to the complainants to pursue other remedies in law. Hence, these contempt petitions are not maintainable. That CCC.Nos.340- 346/2015 came to be withdrawn by the complainants, so as to pursue other remedies and therefore, once again, these contempt petitions could not have been filed by the complainants is their contention. It is -: 7 :- further contended that these contempt petitions are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches on part of the complainants, as they have failed to approach this Court within one year from the alleged cause of action. It is averred that in W.A.Nos.5402-21/2002, the order of the learned Single Judge dated 30/07/2002 was stayed by an interim order dated 20/11/2002. Subsequently, pursuant to an industrial dispute raised by Hindustan Aeronautics Employees' Association ("HAEA", for short) in respect of all casual labourers and term contract labourers, including petitioners in the writ petition, a Settlement was entered into between the management and the Union, in the course of Conciliation proceedings held on 22/06/2009. Thereafter, a memo for withdrawal of the writ appeals was filed bringing to the notice of the Division Bench of this Court with regard to the Settlement arrived at between them. The writ appeals were permitted to be withdrawn by this Court on 23/07/2009. In case the complainants were aggrieved by the Settlement or if -: 8 :- the Settlement did not benefit them in any way, they ought to have sought for implementation of the order of learned Single Judge dated 30/07/2002, by filing a contempt petition within a period of one year from 23/07/2009 i.e., the date when the writ appeals were permitted to be withdrawn. That subsequently, two more Settlements were entered into on 22/06/2012 and 06/02/2015, providing for higher emoluments. The complainants herein have received the benefits flowing there from.
5. It is submitted that for the first time, on 12/11/2014, the complainants sought to resile from the aforesaid legal position, by getting issued a legal notice through a different counsel, alleging that the order dated 30/07/2002 passed in the writ petitions had not been complied with, to which, a suitable reply dated 25/11/2014 was given by the management pointing out the Settlements and its applicability to the complainants. That subsequently, in the year 2015, the complainants filed an application in the writ -: 9 :- appeals, for recall of order dated 23/07/2009, which application was disposed of on 19/03/2015 without granting any relief to the complainants. Thereafter, complainants filed contempt petitions, which were withdrawn. Subsequently, complainants approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court, by filing a Special Leave Petition, challenging order dated 19/03/2015, passed in writ appeals, which was dismissed on 08/07/2015. Thereafter, the present contempt petitions have been filed. That there is no sufficient cause to condone the delay in approaching this Court and that filing of the present proceedings by the complainants is an abuse of process of law and hence, the contempt petitions must be dismissed in limine, is the contention.
6. It is further contended that in view of the Conciliation Settlement dated 22/06/2009, the writ petitioners agreed to receive the benefits in lieu of the order dated 30/07/2002 passed by the learned Single Judge in the writ petitions and hence, the writ appeals were withdrawn by the management. According to the -: 10 :- respondent - Company, order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002 has merged with the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22/06/2009, entered into between the management and the HAEA under Section 18(3) read with Section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act").
7. According to the respondent - Company, Union raised an industrial dispute on behalf of all casual labourers and Term Contract Labourers ("TCLs"), including the complainants and other writ petitioners, who were working as casual labourers. The issues raised in the writ petitions were also part of the issues raised in the Conciliation proceedings. That the Settlement covers all issues raised in the writ petitions. That the Union agreed to accept the benefits flowing from the Settlement as a full and final Settlement of all their disputes. According to the respondent - Company, the Settlement was a full and final Settlement of all disputes between the parties including those raised in the writ petitions. Thus, the -: 11 :- order dated 30/07/2002 would not survive for implementation in view of the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22/06/2009. The said Settlement is binding on all the workmen employed in the industry and also persons who are subsequently employed, as has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India. Therefore, there is no disobedience of the order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002.
8. It is further contended that in view of the Settlement dated 22/06/2009 and the subsequent withdrawal of the writ appeal coupled with the acceptance of the benefits flowing from the said Settlement, complainants are estopped from resiling from the settled position, particularly, when the complainants have not objected to the Settlement and in fact, have received benefits under the said Settlement without demur and without objecting to the non-implementation of order of the learned Single Judge dated 30/07/2002. Therefore, complainants -: 12 :- cannot be permitted to retrace their steps at this stage, is the contention of the respondent.
9. Further, it is contended by the respondent - Company that when the Settlements have been arrived at between the Employees' Union and the respondent - Company during the course of Conciliation proceedings, it binds all the casual employees, TCL's, etc., whether they are members of the Union or not and they have no legal right to question the Settlement dated 22/06/2009 in the year 2015. That the Settlement provides for grant of higher monetary benefits to casual labourers and TCLs including Drivers and Mechanics involved in the writ petition as per Clause 3.4 of the Settlement, which is binding on all casual labourers and TCLs. That it was also specifically agreed that all cases pending before Tribunal/Courts shall be withdrawn by the parties before implementation of the Settlement vide Clause 3.3. Therefore, the writ appeals were withdrawn by filing a memo, expressly referring to the Settlement -: 13 :- arrived at between the parties, further, there was no objection raised to the withdrawal of the writ appeals. Hence, by virtue of the Settlement dated 22/06/2009 and another Conciliation dated 22/06/2012 and subsequently, Conciliation Settlement dated 06/02/2015, the complainants are continuing to receive the benefits and hence, there was no occasion for them to get a legal notice issued dated 12/11/2014, through another advocate and then to file these contempt petitions after withdrawal of the earlier contempt petitions filed by them. It is contended by the respondent - Company that the respondent has not disobeyed any order of this Court and therefore, they have sought for dropping of these proceedings.
10. Rejoinder has been filed by the complainants to the statement of objections filed by the respondent - company, by reiterating the averments made in the petition and by also contending that the complainants herein, at no point -: 14 :- of time were members of any trade union or employees union. That they were not parties to the alleged Settlement entered into with the accused. That the cause of action for filing a contempt petition against the accused arose during the end of the year 2014 when the complainants received a reply given by the respondent - company and not from the date of the order of the Division Bench of this Court. It is further contended that the alleged Settlement was arrived at the back of the complainants and that the respondent - Company misrepresented before this Hon'ble Court.
11. Reliance has been placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and others [(2001) 7 SCC 549], to contend that the limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act is under a special law and that Section 17 read with Section 29(2) read with Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, would apply in the instant case.
-: 15 :-
12. It is further contended that Clause (2) and (3.3) of the Settlement have no bearing on the grievance of the complainants herein as the complainants had no knowledge of the Settlement arrived at between HAEA and the respondent - Company. That immediately after coming to know about the alleged Settlement, the complainants filed an application seeking recall of order dated 23/07/2009 by which, the writ appeals were disposed of. The complainants filed contempt petitions bearing Nos.340-346/2015, for implementation of the order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002. Thereafter, the complainants approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by filing SLP.No.16776/2014, challenging order dated 19/03/2015, passed by the Division Bench of this Court. It is further contended that there is no delay in approaching this Court by filing the present contempt petitions for implementation of the order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002, in view of the liberty -: 16 :- granted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court to seek enforcement of that order.
13. We have heard learned counsel for complainants and learned counsel for respondent - Company and perused the material on record.
14. Learned counsel for the complainants has reiterated the averments and contentions made in the memorandum of contempt petitions and also the rejoinder by placing reliance on certain decisions and has sought for implementation of the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002.
15. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent
- Company while reiterating the contentions raised in the statement of objections has also placed reliance on certain judgments to raise the plea of limitation in filing the present contempt petitions and also other legal contentions as has been narrated above by placing reliance on certain decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
-: 17 :-
16. Before we proceed further in the matter, it would be relevant to extract the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08/07/2015 passed in SLP(Civil) No.16776/2015 as on the basis of that order complainants have sought to allege disobedience of the order of learned single Judge, which reads as under:-
"UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following ORDER A writ petition was filed in which these petitioners were also parties. In the said writ petition, learned Single Judge passed an order directing regularisation of the petitioners as well as some other persons. The respondent preferred the appeal. During the pendency of the appeal, Settlement was arrived at between the respondent-Management and the Union of Workmen. The petitioners were not the members of the Union. After the Settlement, the respondent withdrew the appeal. However, the benefit of the Settlement was not extended to the petitioners on the ground that the petitioners were not the members of the Union and therefore not party to the -: 18 :- Settlement. On this basis, the petitioners filed an application for recall of the order of the dismissal of the appeal which was withdrawn. We fail to appreciate as to why such a step was even needed by the petitioners. Since the appeal was withdrawn, the order of the Single Judge directing regularisation in favour of the petitioners becomes final and the petitioners could always take benefit of the said order.
In view thereof, this special leave petition is dismissed, leaving the petitioner to take out appropriate proceedings to seek enforcement of that judgment."
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed about the implication of withdrawal of the writ appeals filed by the respondent - Company which had assailed the order of the learned single Judge directing regularization of the complainants. According to the Hon'ble Supreme Court, once the writ appeals were withdrawn, the directions of the learned single Judge became final and the writ petitioners could take the benefit of the said order by seeking enforcement of the same. It is in order to seek enforcement of the order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002, -: 19 :- that the present contempt petitions have been filed after withdrawing the earlier contempt petitions namely, CCC.Nos.340-346/2015, which were dismissed as withdrawn by order dated 08/04/2015, giving liberty to the complainants to pursue other remedies available in law. Hence, according to respondent - Company, these contempt petitions are not maintainable. The same has been objected to by the respondent - Company. The second objection is with regard to there being delay in filing these contempt petitions. The third objection is based on the contention regarding merger of order of the learned single Judge, dated 30/07/2002, passed in W.P.Nos.20405-424/1997, which is sought to be implemented through these contempt petitions with the Settlement dated 22/06/2009 and subsequent Settlements which have been made applicable to the complainants. The aforesaid objections shall be considered in the first instance in seriatim. -: 20 :-
18. Before that, it would be useful to extract the operative directions issued by the learned single Judge of this Court in W.P.Nos.20405-424/1997, which read as under:-
"21. For the reasons stated, these writ petitions are allowed. The impugned orders at Annexures-"CC" to "HH" are hereby quashed. Further a Writ of mandamus is given to the 1st respondent to absorb them as permanent employees by relaxing the educational qualification and age prescribed under the Recruitment and promotion Rules and pay the consequential financial benefits upto the extent of 30% to each of the petitioners from the date of petition till the date of compliance of this order. If this directions are not complied with within the stipulated period, then they are entitled for 50% of monetary benefits as stated above. Further, first respondent is directed to consider their cases for consequential promotions also. This order shall be complied with within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order."
19. Thereafter, W.A.Nos.5402-5421/2002 were filed by the respondent - Company. During the pendency of those appeals, memo for withdrawal of -: 21 :- the writ appeals was filed. According to learned counsel for respondent - company, the decision to withdraw the appeals was taken on account of the resolution of the disputes between the management and the trade union under the Settlement arrived at under Section 18(3) read with Section 12(3) of the Act and in terms of the said Settlement. The Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeals as withdrawn in view of the memo filed by the respondent - Company, which was the appellant in the writ appeals.
20. It is in the above context that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that since the appeals were withdrawn, the order of the learned single Judge directing regularization in favour of the employees became final and they could be benefited by the said directions and hence, they could take out appropriate proceedings to seek enforcement of the judgment of the learned single Judge. In the above background, -: 22 :- the respondent - Company has raised the aforesaid objections.
21. It is noted that the complainants had earlier filed CCC.Nos.340-346/2015 and the said contempt petitions were dismissed as withdrawn on 08/04/2015 reserving liberty to the complainants to pursue their remedies. Subsequently, what the complainants did was to challenge order dated 19/03/2015 before the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in W.A.Nos.5402-5421/2002. By that order, the Division Bench observed that when the respondent - Company, herein, as appellant, intended to withdraw the writ appeals and they were permitted to do so, by order dated 23/07/2009, the respondents in those writ appeals (some of whom are the complainants herein), did not have any grievance with regard to the withdrawal of the writ appeals. By then, the complainants herein, had already initiated CCC.Nos.340-346/2015, which were withdrawn. Not being successful in the application filed by them -: 23 :- (I.A.No.I/2015 in the writ appeals), so as to seek restoration of the appeals, the complainants herein withdrew the contempt petitions already filed by them and instead, filed special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, assailing order dated 19/03/2015 passed by the Division Bench of this Court. Infact, the contempt petitions filed earlier was precisely to implement order dated 30/07/2002, passed by the learned single Judge, in the writ petitions. In fact, the Hon'ble Supreme Court also by its observation has impliedly stated that the complainants herein could enforce the order of the learned single Judge. Therefore, the reason as to why the complainants withdrew the earlier contempt petitions and thereafter, have once again preferred these contempt petitions after being unsuccessful in their attempt to get the writ appeals restored, would imply that the complainants herein by withdrawing CCC.Nos.340-346/2015, have virtually given up their right to enforce the order dated 30/07/2002 passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. If indeed, -: 24 :- the complainants herein wanted to enforce that order, there was no reason for them to withdraw the earlier contempt petitions filed by them on 08/04/2015, stating that they would pursue appropriate remedies. That would only mean remedies other than filing the present contempt petitions. Therefore, these contempt petitions would not be maintainable on the ground of approbation and reprobation.
22. The above ground would give rise to the second objection by the respondent - Company i.e., with regard to there being delay in filing these contempt petitions. While considering this aspect of the matter, it would be necessary to reiterate that these contempt petitions have been filed once again to seek enforcement of order dated 30/07/2002, passed by the learned single Judge of this Court. The earlier contempt petitions were also filed in the year 2015 and they were withdrawn on 08/04/2015. These contempt petitions have been filed on 19/11/2015 and in the interregnum, the complainants herein had filed -: 25 :- an application seeking revocation of order dated 23/07/2009, passed in W.A.No.5402/2009 and being unsuccessful in that attempt i.e., dismissal of the application dated 19/03/2015, the complainants herein filed special leave petition before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which dismissed the same, reserving liberty to the complainants herein, to seek enforcement of the order of the learned single Judge. Therefore, these contempt petitions are filed on the strength of the order of the Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 08/07/2015.
23. The argument regarding delay in filing these contempt petitions raised by learned counsel for respondent - Company is in the context of the complainants herein not filing any contempt petition so as to seek enforcement of the order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002 till the year 2015 and thereafter, CCC.Nos.340-346/2015 which was filed by the complainants herein seeking enforcement of the order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002 -: 26 :- being withdrawn by the complainants herein and these petitions being filed once again seeking enforcement of the order dated 30/07/2002. The writ appeals filed by the respondent - Company was withdrawn on 23/07/2009, on the basis of memo dated 06/07/2009, filed by the respondent - Company before the Division Bench of this Court. From 23/07/2009 onwards, the complainants herein did not take steps to implement the order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002. It was only in the year 2015 that CCC.Nos.340-346/2015 were filed but the same were withdrawn by the complainants herein, so as to seek restoration of the writ appeal. When that attempt proved futile, the complainants herein filed SLP before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and when the same was dismissed, they have filed these contempt petitions in November 2015.
24. Thus, right from the year 2002 or at any rate after the withdrawal of the appeal in the year 2009, the complainants did not take steps to seek -: 27 :- enforcement of the order dated 30/07/2002. In fact, when the writ appeal was filed by the respondent - company was dismissed on 23/07/2009 on the premise of the Settlement arrived at between the management and the trade union, the complainants herein did not find that the withdrawal of the writ appeal was in any way prejudicial to their case; rather withdrawal of the writ appeal by the respondent - company for whatever reason it may be implied that the order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002, resurfaced according to the complainants herein. If that was the position according to the complainants, nothing prevented them from filing contempt petitions seeking enforcement of that order as early as in the year 2009 itself. But till 2015, no steps were taken for its enforcement and further, no reason is assigned for the delay in filing of the contempt petitions in the year 2015. More over, CCC.Nos.340-346/2015 filed in the early part of 2015 were also withdrawn. It is only on the basis of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court -: 28 :- while dismissing the special leave petition that these contempt petitions have been filed. We think that these contempt petitions are hit by the principles of delay and laches and not merely on the basis of being filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation. Hence, the contempt petitions are not maintainable as they are hit by the principles of delay and laches.
25. In the above background of facts, reliance placed on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Pallav Sheth vs. Custodian and others [(2001) 7 SCC 549], T.Sudhakar Prasad vs. Government of Andhra Pradesh and Others [2001 (1) SCC 516] and M/s.A.V.Kowdi & Co. vs. R.V.Lakshmidevamma [ILR 1990 Kar. 4355] are not apposite. The question is not with regard to, the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Act or with regard to exercise of power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, but the point is, with regard to the complainants not seeking to implement the directions of the learned single Judge in right -: 29 :- earnest and within a reasonable time. Further, the aforesaid reasoning would amply make it clear that the complainants, being satisfied with the benefits received under the Settlements, did not choose to seek enforcement or implementation of the directions of the learned single Judge. It is only by way of an after thought, in the year 2015, that steps were taken to implement those directions by filing CCC.Nos.340- 346/2015 which were also withdrawn.
26. This takes us to the third objection raised by the respondent - Company, with regard to the maintainability of the contempt petitions in the context of merger of the order of the learned single Judge dated 30/07/2002, passed in W.P.Nos.20405- 424/1997, with the Settlement dated 22/06/2009, arrived at between the respondent - Company and the employees and the subsequent Settlements arrived thereto.
27. Reliance has been placed on Barauni Refinery Pragatisheel Shramik Parishad vs. -: 30 :- Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. and others [AIR 1990 SC 1801], in the context of Section 18 of the Act, to contend that there is a distinction between those settlements that are arrived at outside the conciliation proceedings as opposed to those arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings. A settlement which belongs to the first category has limited application in that it merely binds the parties to the agreement but a settlement belonging to the second category has extended application since it is binding on all parties to the industrial dispute, to all others who were summoned to appear in the conciliation proceedings and to all persons employed in the establishment or part of the establishment, as the case may be, to which the dispute related on the date of the dispute and to all others who joined the establishment thereafter. Therefore, a settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings with a recognized majority union will be binding on all workmen of the establishment, even those who belong to the minority union which had objected to the same. Therefore, a -: 31 :- settlement arrived at in the course of conciliation proceedings is to put on par with an award made by an adjudicatory authority.
28. Similarly, in I.T.C.Ltd., Workers Welfare Association and another vs. The Management of ITC Ltd. and others [AIR 2002 SC 937], it has been held that settlement becomes binding on all the parties to the dispute as well as the other workmen in the establishment to which the dispute relates and all other persons who may be subsequently employed in that establishment as individual employer cannot seek to wriggle out of the settlement merely because it does not suit him.
29. Similarly, in M/s.Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co. Ltd., vs. Their Workmen [AIR 1981 SC 2163], it has been held that if a settlement has been arrived at by a vast majority of the concerned workers with their eyes open and was also accepted by them in its totality, it must be presumed to be just and fair and not liable to be ignored merely -: 32 :- because a small number of workers were not parties to it or refused to accept it, or because the tribunal was of the opinion that the workers deserved marginally higher emolument than they themselves thought it fit.
30. That these contempt petitions have been filed by only seven persons out of nineteen persons, who had filed W.P.Nos.20405-424/1997, which were disposed of by this court on 30/07/2002.
31. Having regard to the contention of learned counsel for respondent - Company, the Settlements arrived at have been perused. Reference has been made to Settlement dated 22/06/2009 Annexure "R- 3". Learned counsel for respondent has drawn our attention to Clause 3.2 and 3.3 of the Memorandum of Settlement arrived at under Section 18(3) read with Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947. A perusal of the same would indicate that in the discussion held between the management of the respondent - Company and the representation of -: 33 :- HAEA before the Conciliation Officer, the management of the respondent - Company agreed for enhancement of wages of 18 Casual Labourer (14 Drivers, 1 Motor Mechanic, 1 Helper and 2 Aircraft Cleaners) and 244 Term Contract Labourers (unskilled and semiskilled) and improvement of their service conditions as detailed below, as the demand of the Recognized Union for regularization of these labour as permanent workmen could not be considered by the management. In the above background, the "Terms of the Settlement", which are relevant are extracted as under:-
"3.1 The Settlement will be effective for the period from 05.02.2007 to 31.12.2009.
The Settlement shall continue to be binding upon the Parties beyond 31.12.2009, till a new Settlement is arrived at from 01.01.2010.
3.2 The Management has agreed for the enhancement of wages, improvements of service conditions etc., as in the Settlement, as the demand of the Recognized Union (HAEA) for absorption of the Casual Labour (CL) and Term -: 34 :- Contract Labour (TCL) as regular employees cannot be considered in view of facts such as (a) non availability of vacancies as per the prescribed manpower ceilings of the Divisions,
(b) services for which most of the CL/TCL were engaged have been outsourced and
(c) due to the law declared by the Supreme Court regarding recruitment in the Secretary, State of Karnataka Vs Umadevi and others case reported in 2006 (4) SCC page 1.
3.3 All Cases and disputes pending before different Tribunals / Courts or in Conciliations, regarding the demand of the Union of the Casual Labour & Term Contract Labour concerned for their absorption as regular workmen, filed by the Union or the Casual Labour and / or Term Contract Labour concerned individually or in groups or through and / or by the Union or by any other Party will be withdrawn by the concerned Parties, before the provisions for enhanced wages etc., as per this Settlement are implemented by the Management. A list of cases to be withdrawn as annexed to this Settlement as Appendix-I. (emphasis by us) -: 35 :- 3.4 This Settlement will be applicable only in respect of 18 Casual Labour (14 Drivers, 1 Motor Mechanic, 1 Helper and 2 Aircraft Cleaner) and 244 Term Contract Labour whose list is enclosed as Annexure-II to this Settlement and it shall not be quoted as a precedent for any other cases."
32. As per Clause 3.3 extracted above, W.A.Nos.5402-5421/2002 pending before this court were sought to be withdrawn. Accordingly, a memo was filed before the Division Bench of this court, seeking withdrawal of the writ appeals and the same reads as under:-
"MEMO FOR WITHDRAWAL The appellants beg to submit as follows:-
Since the matter in Issue and other Issues have been resolved between the Management and Trade Union by means of a Memorandum of Settlement under section 18(3) read with section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, 1947, the appellants do not want to press the above appeal.
Therefore, it is prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to permit the appellants -: 36 :- to withdraw the appeal and dispose of the appeal as not pressed in the interest of justice and equity."
On the basis of the aforesaid memo, the Division Bench passed a judgment in the following terms:-
"In view of the Memo filed by the appellants, the appeal is dismissed as withdrawn."
33. Thus, it is on the basis of the terms of Settlement between the management of the respondent - Company and the complainants herein and other petitioners that Writ Appeal Nos.5402- 5421/2002 were withdrawn. The aforesaid Settlement was arrived at on 22/06/2009. Subsequently, two more Settlements have been arrived at as per Annexures "R-4" and "R-5" respectively, which apply to the complainants herein and salary of the complainants have been enhanced pursuant to the Settlements arrived at between the management and HAEA without there being any regulation of their services. Therefore, grievance of the complainants -: 37 :- herein were considered before the Conciliation Officer and the same were taken up by the HAEA on their behalf also.
34. That the first Settlement dated 22/06/2009 was valid for three years. This is evident from the communication of the General Secretary, HAEA, addressed to the General Manager (HR) of the respondent - Company vide Annexure "R-7". Therefore, it is pursuant to the Settlement arrived at between the parties and the enhancement in their pay scales being given by making it clear that they cannot be regularized in their services that the writ appeals were withdrawn by the respondent - Company. No objection was raised to the withdrawal of the writ appeals. Further, the complainants herein have acquiesced to the situation and being the beneficiaries under the Settlements did not take any further step after the withdrawal of the writ appeals until the year 2015 when they sought for reopening of the appeals and recalling of order dated 23/07/2009 passed in the -: 38 :- writ appeals. The Division Bench on 19/03/2015 did not accede to the request made by the complainants herein.
35. It is in the above background that the complainants herein filed special leave petitions before the Hon'ble Supreme Court by contending that the benefit of the Settlements were not extended to them on the ground that they were not members of the Union and therefore, not party to the Settlement. The aforesaid contention is wholly untrue as even though the complainants herein were not members of the Union nevertheless, with their consent, the office bearers of the Union took up their cause and the Settlements arrived at, squarely applies to them also, which is evident from the aforesaid extracted clauses. In fact, in Annexure "I" to the Memorandum of Settlement dated 22/06/2009 there is a reference to the writ petitions filed by these complainants as well as the pendency of the writ appeals filed by the respondent - Company as those writ appeals were to -: 39 :- be withdrawn in terms of Clause 3.3 of the Settlement extracted above. In the circumstances, it is held that the directions issued by the learned single Judge of this court in the writ petitions on 30/07/2002 would no longer be in force or effective, so as to enforce them through these contempt proceedings. Once the complainants herein were paid higher salaries as per the terms of Settlement, they virtually consented to the withdrawal of the writ appeals filed by the respondent - Company and also did not take any step for implementation of the directions of this court dated 30/07/2002. It is only in the year 2015 that the complainants herein sought to rake up the issue by assailing legality of the order dated 23/07/2009 by which, the Division Bench of this court permitted withdrawal of the appeals filed by the respondent - Company and when that was not permitted, they approached the Hon'ble Supreme Court by contending that they are not parties to the Settlement, which contention is not true and correct, having regard to the discussion made above.
-: 40 :-
36. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the directions issued by this court in the writ petitions disposed of on 30/07/2002 would not survive so as to enforce the same in these contempt proceedings. Hence, the contempt proceedings are dropped.
Sd/-
JUDGE Sd/-
JUDGE *mvs