Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 774 (JHR)

Steel Authority of India Ltd. v. Nirmala Devi

2012-05-18

APARESH KUMAR SINGH, PRAKASH TATIA

body2012
JUDGMENT By Court Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner on the ground that on 3rd January, 2002, this Court passed the interim order staying the execution of the impugned order dated 20th December, 2000 passed by the Labour court, Bokaro in W.C. Case No.11 of 1996. However, as per the mandatory requirement, petitioner was bound to deposit the awarded amount before the Labour CommissionercumWorkmen Compensation Commissioner and, therefore, the petitioner deposited Rs.2,06,098/towards compensation awarded by the Labour court. The petitioner submitted and gave also a letter to the Labour courtcumWorkmen Compensation Commissioner that the petitioner is preferring the appeal before the High Court and, therefore, the deposited amount may not be paid to the claimant. This letter was given on 19th February, 2001. It appears from the facts of the case that before interim order dated 3rd January, 2002 passed in Misc. Appeal No.51 of 2001 staying execution of the order of the Labour court, the amount was paid to the claimant on 13th August, 2001. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since there was mandatory requirement of predeposit of the amount, the petitioner deposited the amount before the Labour court in W.C. Case No. 11 of 1996 and since the said court was made aware that petitioner is challenging the order of the Labour court, therefore, the Labour court should not have paid the amount to the claimant and since the claimant inspite of several efforts made by the State Government and inspite of the rejection of the writ petition of the claimant, whereby the claimant sought to get the order of Labour court stayed, yet the amount has not been deposited by the claimant and, therefore, this contempt petition has been filed. 4. From the facts referred above, it is clear that the amount was required to be deposited before the Labour court, in view of the award dated 20th December, 2000 and before interim order could have been passed by this Court on 3rd January, 2002 the amount was paid to the claimant on 13th August, 2001. In that situation, there is no violation of any order of this Court and hence this Contempt petition is not maintainable. 5. In that situation, there is no violation of any order of this Court and hence this Contempt petition is not maintainable. 5. So far remedy for the petitioner is concerned, the petitioner already moved application before the same Labour court for getting the money back from the claimant and distress warrant has also been issued against the said claimant to whom money has been paid and to challenge the distress warrant the claimant preferred writ petition, which has been dismissed, therefore, the required proceeding is going on against the claimant, in accordance with law. 6. Be that as it may, since there is no violation of any order of this Court, therefore, this contempt petition is not maintainable and hence it is dismissed. However, petitioner shall have the right to recover the amount through the process of law before the Labour court, where it has deposited the amount and which Labour court has paid the amount to the claimant, for which proceeding is already going on. The said Labour court is directed to take steps expeditiously for recovery of the amount, in accordance with law.