Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. The counsel for the petitioner has today urged that the judgment of this Court in Uma Shankar (supra) cannot be read as laying down that a contempt petition would not be maintainable for violation of an order under Section 17B of the Act. He has argued that in Uma Shankar the employer was in violation not only of the order under Section 17B of the ID Act but also of the terms and conditions on which the stay of the award of the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal challenged in that case was granted; that owing to the said violation, the writ petition stood dismissed; that it was thereafter that the contempt petition for non compliance of the order under Section 17B was filed. It is argued that it was in these circumstances, since the writ petition already stood dismissed and further since owing to the violation/breach of the order under Section 17B the petitioner employer in that case had already been punished by the dismissal of its writ petition, that this Court held that the contempt petition would not be maintainable and that the remedy of the workman is under Section 33C of the ID Act. It is urged that in the present case the writ petition in which the order under Section 17B of the ID Act was made is still pending and thus what has been laid down in Uma Shankar, would not apply.

5. I am unable to agree with the counsel for the petitioner that the judgment in Uma Shankar is not a precedent for the proposition that non compliance of order under Section 17B is not contumacious. Undoubtedly, in Uma Shankar the writ petition in which the order under Section 17B was made stood dismissed by the time the contempt petition was filed. However, the contempt petition was held to be not maintainable not for the reason of the writ petition having stood dismissed. This Court referred to T. Sudhakar Prasad v. Govt. of A.P. JT 2001 (1) SC 204 and to R.N. Dey v. Bhagyabati Pramanik 2000 (4) SCC 400 deprecating the use of Contempt of Court jurisdiction as a method of executing a decree or implementing an order for which the law provides appropriate remedy. This Court also relied upon Kishorbhai Dahyabhai Solanki v. Nagjibhai Muljibhai Patel (2002) II LLJ 1034 Gujarat (DB) and on Abdul Razack Sahib v. Mrs. Azizunnissa Begum AIR 1970 Madras 14 to hold that penal sanctions under the contempt procedure should not be invoked for default of compliance with such orders and that the high function of a Court of Justice proceedings by way of Contempt of Court should not be employed as a legal thumbscrew by a party against his opponent for enforcement of his claim. It is on the basis of the said principles that this Court held that the contempt petition did not lie. Uma Shankar is thus a precedent on all fours against the maintainability of this petition.

9. Mention must also be made of the recent dicta in Kaivalyadham Employees Association Vs. Kaivalyadham S.M.Y.M. Samity MANU/SC/1656/2009 where the Supreme Court though held that the High Court could not direct an application under Section 17B to be adjudicated by directing parties to lead evidence before the Labour Court under Section 33C(2), nevertheless held that in certain cases the provisions of Section 33C(2) may have to be resorted to in respect of an order under Section 17B but not as a matter of course.

12. Some of the other counsels for employee / workman in other similar matters have argued that unless the jurisdiction of contempt is exercised in such a situation, the workman would be compelled to file applications under Section 33C month after month. It is also contended that the procedure before the Labour Court / Industrial Tribunal is elaborate.

13. The Labour Courts/ Industrial Tribunals were constituted to provide a speedy remedy to the workmen who are found to be constituting a class amongst themselves entitled to speedy adjudication of their claims. Though finding merit in the contentions that the lofty aspiration with which the Labour Courts/Industrial Tribunals were constituted has not been fulfilled and it is often found that the disposal of the disputes by the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal is taking longer than adjudication by the Civil Courts, however, the same cannot digress the view of this Court on the logic aforesaid. It is for the Industrial Tribunal/Labour Court to devise ways and methods for enforcement of orders under Section 17B. If the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal finds that the employer is harassing the workman in payment under Section 17B, the Labour Court/Industrial Tribunal can always devise ways and means for ensuring such payment regularly and month by month. Moreover if it is shown to this Court also that the employer has by his/its conduct created a situation whereby neither the award of reinstatement is being enforced/implemented nor is the order under Section 17B abided by, this Court can always invoke its jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the guilty.