Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 472 (PAT)

Shyamal Kumar Gupta v. State Of Bihar

2004-04-26

CHANDRAMAULI KR.PRASAD

body2004
Judgment 1. This application has been fiied for initiating a proceeding of contempt against opposite party for non-compliance of the order dated 10th of March, 2000 passed in C.W.J.C. No. 7198 of 1998. 2. Short facts giving rise to the present application are that the petitioner was an employee of Modi Threads Limited. He was dismissed from service by order dated 25.8.1994. He challenged the order of his dismissal by filing an application under section 26(2) of Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, which was registered as BSE Case No. 44 of 1994. The Presiding Officer, Labour Court, and the authority under the Bihar Shops and Establishment Act, by order dated 9.4.1997, found the order of dismissal to be illegal, unjust and also against the principle of natural justice and directed for reinstatement of the petitioner in service with full back wages and other consequential benefits. The Modi Threads Limited, hereinafter referred to as employer challenged the said order before this Court in a writ application which was registered as C.W.J.C. No. 7198 of 1998 (Modi Threads Limited vs. The State of Bihar & ors.) It is relevant here to state that in respect of certain other employees, against the award of reinstatement, the employer had preferred C.W.J.C. No. 3548 of 1996 (Modi Threads Limited vs. The State of Bihar & ors.).When the matter was taken up on 10.2.1998, the counsel representing the workmen in the said case, stated before the Court that they are ready to accept their back wages without their reinstatement in service which was agreed to by the counsel representing the employer. On the basis of aforesaid, this Court directed as follows: "Accordingly, without going into the merit of this case, I direct the petitioner to pay the entire back wages to the respondent workmen, as directed by the Labour Court to be accounted from the date of termination till the date of respective payment. Since the respondent workmen are not interested in the reinstatement in the service of the petitioner Company, the petitioner shall pay the back wages to the respondent workmen as early as possible, preferably, within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order." 3. Since the respondent workmen are not interested in the reinstatement in the service of the petitioner Company, the petitioner shall pay the back wages to the respondent workmen as early as possible, preferably, within six weeks from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order." 3. When the writ application filed by the employer in relation to the order governing the petitioner was taken up for consideration on 10.2.2000, similar prayer was made by the petitioner stating that he does not want reinstatement and will be satisfied if the back wages are given on the same terms and conditions as in the case of the employees governed by C.W.J.C. No. 3548 of 1996. Same was objected to by the employer but ultimately, this Court directed the employer to pay back wages to the petitioner as early as possible preferably, within six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of the said order. Relevant portion of the said order reads as follows: "I dispose of the writ application by directing the petitioner-company to pay back wages to the respondent-workman as early as possible preferably within six months from the date of receipt/ production of a copy of this order. As the respondent does not want reinstatement, I do not pass any direction in this regard." 4. It is the grievance of the petitioner that he has not been paid the back wages till the date of its payment and as such, the opposite party have exposed themselves for punishment for disobedience of the order passed by this Court. 5. Mr. Kishore Kumar Thakur, appearing on behalf of the petitioner contends that the direction given by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 3548 of 1996 has to be read in the order passed in the writ application filed by the petitioner and as such, petitioner is entitled to be paid the back wages till the date of its payment. 6. Mr. Chitranjan Sinha, Senior Advocate, appearing on behalf of the opposite party, however, submits that the direction as given in C.W.J.C. No. 3548 of 1996, cannot be read in the case of the petitioner and according to his submission, the said fact although was brought to the notice of this Court but it did not direct payment of back wages till its payment as was given in the earlier case. He emphasises that in the earlier case, this court in specific term, directed that the back wages have to be paid from the date of termination till the date of respective payment. He emphasises further that when another view is possible, opposite party cannot be hauled up for committing contempt of court. 7. Having considered the rival submission, i am of the opinion that the direction given by this court in C.W.J.C. No. 3548 of 1996 has to be read in the case of the petitioner also. It is relevant here to state that the petitioner prayed for disposal of the writ application in terms of the agreement arrived at between the employees and the employer in the earlier case which was objected to by the employer, but still this court held that when the employer had earlier accepted the proposal of other three employees similarly situated before this Court, even without his consent, the writ application has to be disposed of by directing the employer to pay back wages to the workmen. 8. True it is that in the order governing the petitioner, there is no specific direction for payment of back wages til! its payment and as such, the opposite party may not be hauled up for committing contempt of this Court but the order of this Court has not been complied with in its true spirit. It is clarified that the petitioner shall be entitled for the back wages from the date of termination of service till 10.2.2000 i.e. the date on which C.W.J.C. No. 7198 of 1998 was disposed of. 9. It is common ground that during the pendency of this application certain payments have been made to the petitioner. The opposite party shall pay to the petitioner the back wages from the date of termination of the petitioners service till 10.2.2000 within four weeks from today after adjusting the payments already made. 10. Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.