Delhi District Court
Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma vs Sh. Mahinder Pal Singh Dhillon on 2 December, 2016
IN THE COURT OF SHRI UMED SINGH GREWAL
POLCXVII ROOM NO. 22 :KKD COURTS: DELHI
Misc 10822/16 (Old M No. 13/10).
Unique ID No.02402C0142482010.
Sh. Ramesh Chand Sharma
S/o Sh. Babu Ram Sharma
R/o B123, Gali No. 2, Prem Vihar, Shiv Nagar,
33 Foota Road, Karawal Nagar, Delhi1100094.
..............Workman/ Petitioner
Versus
Sh. Mahinder Pal Singh Dhillon, Proprietor
M/s. New Dhillon Star Carrier Pvt. Ltd.,
Office at: 487/9, 1st Floor, Darpan Complex,
G.T. Road, Dilshad Garden, Delhi110095.
............. Management / Contemnor
DATE OF INSTITUTION : 20.05.2010.
DATE ON WHICH ORDER RESERVED : 29.11.2016.
DATE ON WHICH ORDER PASSED : 02.12.2016.
O R D E R:
1. This order shall decide application under Section 12 of
Contempt of Court Act for initiating contempt proceedings against
the management / contemnor for not complying with the settlement
arrived at in DID No. 1243 in Mediation Cell upon which the
award was passed by the then Labour Court on 02.02.10.
2. Applicant's case is that he had raised an industrial
Misc 10822/16. 1/7
dispute against the management / contemnor which was referred
to Delhi Mediation Centre, Karkardooma where it was amicably
settled on 01.11.2008 on the undertaking of the management that it
will clear all the dues of PF as per rules. Accordingly, the case
was disposed off on 02.02.10 on the basis of agreement /
settlement. But the management did not clear the PF amount.
Aggrieved by the act of the contemnor, he served a legal notice
dated 29.03.2010 to it to comply with the terms and conditions of
the compromise, but the management did not budge. An amount
of Rs.17,000/ was paid in the Court on 11.11.13. After deduction
of that amount from PF, the total amount of PF from March, 1999
to 01.11.2008 comes out to Rs.1,06,000/.
3. Management's case is that M/s. Dhillon Transport
Agency was being run in partnership. Due to dispute between
partners, the firm was dissolved. It was running into losses as it
was not getting orders from the market.
4. Ld. Counsel for the applicant argued that there was
condition No. 4 in settlement dated 01.11.2008 arrived at
Mediation Cell that the workman would fill up the PF form and the
management shall pay him PF as per rules. The amount of PF
from March, 1999 to 01.11.2008 is Rs.1,23,000/. The
management had paid a sum of Rs.17,000/ in this regard on
Misc 10822/16. 2/7
11.11.13. After deduction of that amount, the net PF amount
comes out to Rs.1,06,000/. That amount has still not been paid
and hence contempt proceedings be initiated.
5. None appeared for the management for arguments.
6. In DGU Workers Union and Ors. Vs. Sh. Kishu
Tekchandani and Ors., Cont. Case (C) No. 537/2004 decided by
Hon'ble High Court on 06.08.2004, the facts were that the High
Court had disposed off a writ petition holding that the question
raised by the petitioners could be more appropriately decided in the
proceedings under Industrial Disputes Act. In that backdrop, a
reference was made by Central Government to Industrial Tribunal
cum Labour Court to determine whether the demand raised for
regularization of employees was just, fair and legal. During
pendency of those proceedings before Industrial Tribunal, The
Cement Corporation of India, terminated the contract of labour
contractor. Aggrieved by that order of Cement Corporation of
India, a writ petition was again filed in the High Court contending
that during the pendency of proceedings before Industrial Tribunal,
the Cement Corporation of India could not terminate the services
of all the employees. The Hon'ble High Court of Delhi held that an
equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to the petitioner
Misc 10822/16. 3/7
by way of an application before the tribunal under Section 33 C
and that he should approach the said Tribunal. An application for
interim direction was filed before Industrial Tribunal - cum
Labour Court which was allowed by directing the management to
set aside the orders dated 13.11.2003 and 25.11.03 and to restore
the service of the claimants and to maintain status quo till the
industrial dispute case was decided. Despite expiry of 30 days
from the date of publication of that order in Government Gazette,
the management declined to restore the service of the workmen.
The Contempt petition was filed on above facts. Observing that
the petitioners had alternate remedies mentioned in Section 26 to
31 and 33 of I.D. Act, 1947, the contempt petition was dismissed
in the following words :
"Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 is a complete code
in itself which not only creates rights but provides
effective machinery for adjudication of disputes
relating to such rights and enforcement of the
judgments, awards and settlements delivered in
regard thereto by Courts, Tribunals and
authorities competent to do so. That being the
position, I see no reason why the petitioner cannot
complain of the alleged violation of the award by
the respondents in appropriate proceedings under
anyone of the provisions referred to earlier. The legal position regarding the maintainability of contempt proceedings for execution of decrees or implementation of orders which are otherwise executable in accordance with the regular procedure prescribed for the same is fairly well Misc 10822/16. 4/7 settled. The Supreme Court has in R.N. Dey and Ors. vs. "bhagyabati Pramanik and Ors.
MANU/SC/0286/2000 : (2000) 4 SCC 400 authoritatively held that weapon of contempt proceedings cannot be used for purposes of execution of a decree or implementation of an order for which the law provides an appropriate procedure. The purpose of vesting the courts with discretion to punish for contempt of court is to maintain the dignity of the court and the majesty of the law. A power so vested cannot be exercised in cases where the complainants has an effective remedy for enforcement of the decree or the order passed in his favour. Contempt is a matter between the court and the contemner and a jurisdiction. The following passage from the said decision is in this regard instructive : aggrieved party has no right to insist that the court should exercise its : 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.
2. Further, the decreeholder, who dies 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 nonsatisfaction of the money decree. In land acquisition cases when a decree is passed Misc 10822/16. 5/7 the State is in the position of a judgmentdebtor and hence the court should not normally lend help to a party who refuses to take legallyprovided steps for executing the decree. At any rate, the court should not slow o haul up officers of the Government for contempt for nonsatisfaction of such money decree."
7. In the case in hand, it is mentioned in para No. 1 of Mediation Cell report dated 01.11.08 that the matter was settled between the parties for 50,000/. It is mentioned in clause No. 3 that payment of amount of Rs.50,000/ shall be paid by the management in five installments of Rs.10,000/ each. It is mentioned in clause No. 4 that the workman shall fill up PF form and management shall pay the PF of the claimant as per rules.
It has been admitted by counsels for both parties that an amount of Rs.50,000/ has already been paid by the management. Applicant's grudge is regarding nonpayment of PF.
8. As per Section 29 of the I.D. Act, any person, who commits any breach of any term of any settlement or award, which is binding upon him under this Act, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which may extend to six months, or with fine, or with both and where the breach is a continuing one, with a further fine which may extend to two hundred rupees for every day during which the breach continues after the conviction for the first.
Misc 10822/16. 6/7The applicant can approach PF Commissioner also for computation of the amount to which he is entitled from the management.
9. So, the claimant has alternate remedies contained in Section 29 of the I.D. Act, 1947 and other enactment. Applying the above cited law, it is held that contempt petition fails and is accordingly dismissed reserving liberty to the petitioner to institute appropriate proceedings for enforcement of the award before the appropriate authority in accordance with law.
Dictated to the Steno & announced (UMED SINGH GREWAL) in the open Court on 02.12.2016. POLCXVII/KKD, DELHI.
Misc 10822/16. 7/7