Bhagubhai Aapabhai Dhandhal vs Hasmukhlal Borad Or His Successor In The ... on 19 August, 2023

[Cites 10, Cited by 0]

Gujarat High Court

Bhagubhai Aapabhai Dhandhal vs Hasmukhlal Borad Or His Successor In The ... on 19 August, 2023

Bench: A.S. Supehia

                                                                                      NEUTRAL CITATION




      C/MCA/1385/2023                                   ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023

                                                                                       undefined




            IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1385 of 2023

             In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 6450 of 2009
==========================================================
                BHAGUBHAI AAPABHAI DHANDHAL
                            Versus
        HASMUKHLAL BORAD OR HIS SUCCESSOR IN THE OFFICE
==========================================================
Appearance:
MS SUDHA C SHUKLA(3804) for the Applicant(s) No. 1
MR AAKASH GUPTA, AGP for the Opponent(s) No. 1
==========================================================
 CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA
       and
       HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE M. R. MENGDEY

                           Date : 19/08/2023
                            ORAL ORDER

(PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE A.S. SUPEHIA)

1. The present application has been filed seeking following prayer:

"8B) Allow this application by directing the respondent to comply with the directions issued by This Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 6450 of 2009 vide order dated 12/01/2023 & by holding the Respondents liable for committing breach of the directions issued by this Hon'ble Court and punish them under Section 2(c) of the Contempt of Courts Act with costs."

2. Thus, applicant is seeking for compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the captioned writ petition vide order dated 12.01.2023.

3. Learned Single Judge in the judgement dated 12.01.2023 has observed thus:

Page 1 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:44:39 IST 2023

NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1385/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023 undefined 7.2 Therefore, looking at the evidence on record, the findings arrived at by the learned Labour Court with respect to violation of provisions of Sections 33, 25G, 25H and 25F are not required to be interfered with. In the facts and circumstances of the present case, the impugned judgement and award are in accordance with law and cogent reasons have been recorded by the learned Labour Court.

4. Thus, by the judgement dated 12.01.2023 in fact, the writ petition filed by Rajula Nagarpalika challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, Amreli on 09.03.2009 in Reference (LCA) No.65 of 2000 as well as dated 20.04.2009 Reference (LCA) No.41 of 2001 has been rejected.

There are no direction issued by the learned Single Judge for compliance of the award. The writ petition filed by the Rajula Nagarpalika is rejected by making the aforesaid observations.

5. It would be apposite to the refer to the order dated 19.06.2023 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.450 of 2023. The Division Bench of this Court, after considering various judgements on the issue with regard to contempt application being filed for the compliance of the award, has observed thus:

"13. After the aforesaid judgment was delivered by the Division Bench, another Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kishorebhai Dahyabhai Solanki Vs. Nagjibhai Muljibhai Patel, 2002 (2) G.L.H 754, after survey of various judgments, including the judgment rendered in Jaisinh Jodhabhai Vaisya (supra), has held thus :-

Page 2 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:44:39 IST 2023

NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1385/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023 undefined "25. In view of the above it is clear that under I.D. Act itself there is inbuilt mechanism provided for the purpose of enforcement and execution of awards passed by the Labour Courts and the Industrial Tribunals and the award passed by the Labour Court is more or less at par with the decrees of the Civil Court but the only distinction is that the monetary benefits of the award or the settlement is only to be recovered under Land Revenue Code whereas in the decree of Civil Court the other modes are also permissible. Further, noncompliance of award would invite criminal prosecution. However, providing for the recovery under the Land Revenue Code is made a vigorous mode of recovery and therefore it is clear that in the Act itself sufficient and enough measures have been provided for execution of award.

26. At this stage, a reference may be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik, reported in 2000 (4) SCC 400 wherein the Apex Court had an occasion to consider the question regarding initiation of proceedings under the Contempt Act when the award passed by the competent Court under Land Acquisition Act is not complied with. The High Court had initiated proceedings under Contempt Act and directed the appellants to deposit the amount of compensation and thereafter the Collector had moved application to the High Court for vacating the rule issued in the contempt proceedings.

However, the High Court directed that the application made by the Collector to be heard with appeal against which the appellant moved the Apex Court. The Apex Court observed as under:

"We may reiterate that the weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance or misused. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of the Court's dignity and majesty of law. Further, - an aggrieved party has no right to insist that the Court should exercise such jurisdiction as contempt is between a contemner and the Court..... Further the decree holder who Page 3 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:44:39 IST 2023 NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1385/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023 undefined does not take steps to execute the decree in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law should not be encouraged to invoke contempt jurisdiction of the Court for non-satisfaction of the money decree."

27. In the above view of the matter, it is clear that the power of the Contempt Act should not be considered as that of executing Court nor the Court should normally not exercise the power when the party to the award or decree has alternative remedy also for the purpose of implementing or executing the decree or award. It is clarified that we do not hold that such measures of providing alternative remedy for execution of the award or decree operates as bar for exercising powers of this Court under the Contempt Act. However, at the same time, when the Act itself in the present case I.D. Act provides sufficient and effective measures for execution of the award, normally this Court relegate the party concerned who are petitioners in the present case to resort to such remedies provided under the Act for implementation and execution of the award. In view of the above circumstances as mentioned and narrated in case of Bipinchandra (supra) and Shankerpuri (supra) cannot be said to be in existence as on today coupled with the fact that the law is laid down subsequently by the Apex Court in case of State of Maharashtra (supra) and in case of R.N. Dey (supra).

28. In the above view of the matter, we are not inclined to initiate proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act as sought to be canvassed by the petitioners and the petitioners may approach appropriate authority of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal for execution and implementation of awards."

6. We may also refer to the order dated 20.10.2022 passed in Misc. Civil Application No.1040 of 2022 by the Division Bench of this Court.

Page 4 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:44:39 IST 2023

NEUTRAL CITATION C/MCA/1385/2023 ORDER DATED: 19/08/2023 undefined "2. Yet another reason for not entertaining this contempt petition is on the ground that sub-section (9) of Section 11 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 would indicate that an award passed by the Labour Court is executable under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure and sub-section (10) of Section 11 of I. D. Act would indicate that award passed by the Labour Court or Tribunal or National Tribunal can be executed before the Civil Court. Further, the consequences that would flow from non compliance of the award or settlement would entail penal consequences as contemplated under Section 29 of the I. D. Act. It is also to be further noticed that in the event of amount having been quantified, workmen are left with liberty of invoking the provisions of Sub Section (1) of Section 33C of I. D. Act. "

7. Thus, since the applicant is having alternative remedy of approaching the Labour Court by filing the execution application, the present application is misconceived. Even the prayer clause suggest of compliance of the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 12.01.2023 however, there are no such directions issued hence, the application as well as prayer clause is misconceived.

8. Under the circumstances, the present application stands rejected.

Sd/-

(A. S. SUPEHIA, J) Sd/-

(M. R. MENGDEY,J) NVMEWADA/D-4 Page 5 of 5 Downloaded on : Sun Sep 17 01:44:39 IST 2023

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Gujarat High Court