Gujarat High Court
Suryakant C Patel & vs Pankaj Barot....Opponent(S) on 4 March, 2014
Bench: M.R. Shah, R.P.Dholaria
C/MCA/38/2014 JUDGMENT
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
MISC.CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR CONTEMPT) NO. 38 of 2014
In
SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 14598 of 2012
FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH sd/
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA sd/
=============================================
A Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see NO
the judgment ?
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not ? NO
3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the NO
judgment ?
4. Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to NO
the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any
order made thereunder ?
5. Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? NO
=============================================
SURYAKANT C PATEL & 1....Applicant(s)
Versus
PANKAJ BAROT....Opponent(s)
=============================================
Appearance:
MR UT MISHRA, ADVOCATE for the Applicant(s) No. 1 2
MR SHIRISH JOSHI, ADVOCATE for the Opponent(s) No. 1
=============================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.DHOLARIA
Date : 04/03/2014
ORAL JUDGMENT
(PER : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE M.R. SHAH) 1.0. Present application has been preferred by the applicants hereinoriginal respondents of Special Civil Application No.14598 of 2012 requesting to punish respondent Chief Officer of Karamsad Nagarpalika, Karamsad under the Contempt of Courts Act, for willful, Page 1 of 9 C/MCA/38/2014 JUDGMENT deliberate disobedience and non compliance of the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand dated 30.6.2012 passed in Reference (LCA) No.3 of 2003 confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.6.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.14598 of 2012.
2.0. It is the case of the applicant that by judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand dated 30.6.2012 passed in Reference (LCA) No.3 of 2003 directing the respondent Nagarpalika to grant benefit of higher pay scale to the applicant herein , to which, they are entitled to on completion of 91827 years of service as per the policy of the Government. It is the case of the applicant that judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand came to be challenged by the respondent herein before this Court by way of Special Civil Application No.14598 of 2012 and by order dated 17.6.2013 the learned Single Judge has dismissed the said Special Civil Application confirming the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court. It is the case of the applicant that thereafter the applicant served the legal notice upon the respondent - Chief Officer, Karamsad Nagarpalika dated 16.12.2013 to comply with the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court confirmed by the learned Single Judge, however neither there is any reply to the said notice nor the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court confirmed by this Court has been complied with. It is submitted that therefore, there is a deliberate and willful disobedience and non compliance of the judgment and award passed by the labour Court confirmed by this Court. Therefore, it is requested to suitably punish the respondent under the Contempt of Courts Act.
2.1. That in the present application this Court directed the Page 2 of 9 C/MCA/38/2014 JUDGMENT Registry to issue notice of present proceedings upon respondent making it returnable on 6.2.2014. That thereafter, the present application was taken up for further hearing on 6.2.2014 and at the request of learned advocate for the respondent matter came to be adjourned to 20.2.2014 and the respondent was directed to place on record the calculation of the amount due and payable to the respective petitioners, due and payable under the judgment and award passed by the learned Labour Court confirmed by the learned Single Judge and the respondent was directed to see that the order passed by the Labour Court confirmed by this Court is complied with, failing which the Chief Officer of the respondent Municipality shall remain present before this Court on 20.2.2014, to assist this Court. That an affidavit in reply was filed trying to explain the non compliance of the order passed by the Labour Court confirmed by this Court. However, this Court was not satisfied and therefore, by order dated 20.2.2014, this Court issued Rule making it returnable on 26.2.2014.
2.2. That what happened thereafter is shocking. The respondent Chief Officer made false statement before this Court and even tried to mislead this Hon'ble Court. On 26.2.2014 when the present application was taken up for further hearing in the first Session, Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent under the instructions from the respondent Chief Officer of the Karamsad Nagarpalika made a statement at the bar that cheques of Rs.10,000/ each on account are ready and shall be handed over to the respective workmen before 2.30 p.m on the very day. Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent stated at the bar that balance amount shall be paid within a period of two months and therefore, he was also directed to filed affidavit / undertaking of the respondent. Thereafter, the matter was adjourned to 2.30 p.m and when in the second session the matter was called out learned advocate for the Page 3 of 9 C/MCA/38/2014 JUDGMENT applicant stated at the bar and reported that the cheques even of Rs.10,000/ each are not handed over to the respondent workmen. In the second sessions at 2.30 p.m instead of Shri Joshi, learned advocate Shri Koyani, learned advocate has appeared for Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent and has stated that as the Chief Officer and President have not signed cheque as they are in the Court today, the cheques are not handed over to the concerned workmen. As stated herein above, in the first session that was not the statement and / or stand taken by the respondent. A categorical statement was made by Shri Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent under the instructions from the respondent that the cheques for an amount of Rs.10,000/ to be paid to the each workmen today on account are ready and shall be handed over to respondent workmen before 2.30 P.M. As, it was found that an incorrect statement has been made that the cheques of Rs.10,000/ each are ready and same shall be handed over to the respondent workmen before 2.30 p.m, which in fact were not ready and even signed by him, the matter was kept back and this Court called Shri Premal Joshi, learned advocate who appeared on behalf of respondent and made statement as stated above. At 5 O' clock, Shri Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent appeared and stated at the bar under the instructions from the respondent Chief Officer that out of 22 workmen, following six persons have been handed over the cheques and infact they have endorsed that they have received the cheques.
1. Prafulchandra N. Parekh
2. Ramanbhai M. Solanki
3. Pareshbhai B. Patel
4. Dineshbhai C. Parmar
5. Rameshbhai P. Bhoi
6. Mangalbhai D. Solanki Page 4 of 9 C/MCA/38/2014 JUDGMENT He also produced on record the statement sent by Nagarpalika, received through fax, showing the signatures of above stated six persons, which was directed to be taken on record. At that stage, Shri U.T. Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants raised a strong objection submitting that as such not a single workmen inclusive of aforesaid six persons have been given the cheques and without giving the cheques their signatures have been obtained by force.
2.3. We, prima facie, found substance in the aforesaid objection raised by Shri Mishra, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the applicants. Even, Shri Joshi, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent was not in a position to satisfy the Court as to how there were signatures on the aforesaid six cheques and in the rest there was no signature. It was pointed out that there were no signature on the cheques then how on the six cheques the signature of the Chief Officer came and that they were handed over aforesaid six persons. As the Court time was over, this Court adjourned the matter to 28.2.2014 by observing that the concerned respondents are trying to mislead the Court and are trying to be over smart. On 28.2.2014 when the present application was taken for further hearing, Shri Premal Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent stated at the bar that the statement which was made on last occasion i.e. 26.2.2014 to the effect that even six employees were handed over the cheques which was under the instructions from the respondents, is found to be untrue and false and therefore, he would like to retire from the matter. He also stated at the bar under the instructions from the respondent that even those six employees were handed over the cheques, however they were unsigned. Thus, it appears that respondent again made another story and again tried to improve the version after having found that an incorrect and false statement has been made before this Court and the respondent has tried to mislead the Court. Thereafter, we adjourned the matter to Page 5 of 9 C/MCA/38/2014 JUDGMENT 4.3.2014 i.e. today so as to enable the respondent to engage the another lawyer.
3.0. Today, when the present application is taken up for final hearing, Shri Shirish Joshi, learned advocate has stated at the bar that he has instruction to appear on behalf of respondent Chief Officer, Karamsad Nagarpalika. He has fairly conceded that as such the conduct on the part of the respondent cannot be permitted and / or tolerated. However, has stated that as such the respondent was not going to get any personal benefit by making incorrect and / or false statement and as such he was acting in the interest of the Nagarpalika, it appears that the respondent under the over enthusiasm and to show his bonafide made a statement / statements recorded in the earlier order. It is submitted that respondent is young employee and he tenders unconditional apology for whatever has happened and it is requested to show the mercy and not to punish the respondent by sending him to civil prison and has requested to impose fine by taking a liberal view. He has stated at the bar that whatever order will be passed of imposing fine and / or reasonable cost, the respondent is agreeable to the same. He has stated that the respondent has today come with the cheques of Rs.10,000/ to be paid to each applicants. He has also stated at the bar that against total dues of Rs.32,74,678/ further sum of Rs.22,13,046/ is also being paid. He has also stated at the bar that remaining amount shall be paid to the respective employee latest by 15.4.2014. He has placed on record the statement of calculation of the amount due and payable to the respective applicants along with xerox copy of the cheques along with further affidavit dated 4.3.2014. It is submitted therefore, all efforts are made to see that large part of the dues is cleared. Therefore, it is requested to accept the unconditional apology and show mercy.
4.0. Heard the learned advocates for the respective parties at Page 6 of 9 C/MCA/38/2014 JUDGMENT length. At the outset, it is required to be noted that though by judgment and order passed by the learned Labour Court, Anand which has been confirmed by this Court vide order dated 17.6.2013 even after a period of 8 months, the same has not been complied with. Apart from the aforesaid fact as narrated and observed herein above even before this Court also and that too in the present contempt proceedings the respondent has made incorrect and false statement and tried to mislead this Court. The conduct on the part of the respondent is already recorded by this Court in the earlier orders and as such narrated herein above. A first incorrect and false statement was made before this Court that the cheques of Rs.10,000/ to be paid to each workman being the amount on account shall be paid before 2.30 p.m. on 26.2.2014. However, no cheques were handed over. That thereafter, at 2.30 p.m when it was pointed out that the cheques are not handed over to the respective employees and when it was pointed out that the cheque of Rs.10,000/ to each of the employees shall be paid before 2.30 p.m. is found to be incorrect, at 2.30 p.m it was stated that as the cheques are unsigned, as the Chief Officer and President of the Nagarpalika are in the Court, the cheques are not handed over. That thereafter, the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondent appeared at 5 O' Clock and he made a statement that as such out of 22 employees, six employees have been handed over the cheques and he also produced on record the statement along with signatures of six employees who have alleged to have accepted the cheques. At that time, learned advocate for the applicant made strong objection by submitting that as such even those six persons have not haded over the cheques and their signatures have been obtained by force. At the request of learned advocate for the respondent the matter was adjourned to next day. When it was pointed out that how on six cheques there were signature and on other cheques no signature was there, learned advocate for the respondent could not satisfy the Court. However, it was prima facie found that the respondent Page 7 of 9 C/MCA/38/2014 JUDGMENT has made incorrect and false statement and has tried to mislead the Court. That on the next date of hearing, the respondent change the version having realized that he is found caught of making incorrect and false statement and stated that even with respect to those employees also the cheques were unsigned. If the cheques were unsigned even with respect to those six persons there was no reason for the respondent to obtain the signature of those six persons acknowledging the receipt of the cheques. Thus, the respondent has made false and incorrect statement before this Court and has tried to mislead the Court and therefore, the respondent has rendered himself liable for suitable punishment under the Contempt of Courts Act. Under the provision of the Contempt of Courts Act, more particularly, Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act may be punished with simple imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine which may extend to two thousand rupees or with both.
5.0. However, considering the request made by Shri Shirish Joshi, learned advocate for the respondent to accept an unconditional apology and not to punish him by sending him to jail and instead to impose fine, we are of the opinion that if instead of punishing the respondent while holding the respondent guilty of the contempt of Courts by making false and incorrect statement before this Court instead of punishing respondent by sending him to jail we are of the opinion that fine of Rs.2000/ is imposed upon the respondent and respondent be saddled with the heavy cost to be paid by him personally, it will meet the end of justice.
6.0. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, present application succeeds. The respondent is held guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act for non compliance of the judgment and award passed by Page 8 of 9 C/MCA/38/2014 JUDGMENT the learned Labour Court, Anand dated 30.6.2012 passed in Reference (LCA) No.3 of 2003 confirmed by the learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment and order dated 17.6.2013 passed in Special Civil Application No.14598 of 2012 as well as by making false and incorrect statement before this Court and by holding the respondent guilty under the Contempt of Courts Act, is directed to pay fine of Rs.2000/ to be deposited with the Registry of this Court and is also further directed to deposit the cost of present proceedings which is quantified at Rs.50,000/ to be borne by the respondent contemnor personally, to be deposited with the Registry of this Court within a period of two weeks from today and on such deposit by the respondent contemnor, Registry is directed to pay Rs.1000/ to each of the applicants / employees by Account payee Cheque and the balance amount to be transmitted to the Gujarat State Legal Services Authority. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent.
sd/ (M.R.SHAH, J.) sd/ (R.P.DHOLARIA,J.) Kaushik Page 9 of 9