JUDGMENT : K.M. Thaker, J. Heard Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa, learned advocate for the applicant and Mr. K.M. Patel, learned Senior Counsel with Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate for the opponent electricity company. 1. Having regard to the facts of the case, Rule. Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya, learned advocate has waived service of Notice of Rule on behalf of the respondent electricity company. 1.1 At the request of learned advocate for the applicant and with consent of learned advocate for the opponent, the application is taken up for hearing and final decision today. 2. The applicant union is the original respondent No. 12 in Special Civil Application No. 14224 of 2008 and present opponent electricity company is the original petitioner in the said Special Civil Application No. 14224 of 2008. 3. In the said Special Civil Application No. 14224 of 2008 present opponent has challenged the award dated 1.1.2008 passed by learned Industrial Tribunal at Rajkot in Reference (IT) No. 29 of 1999 whereby the learned Industrial Tribunal directed the petitioner electricity company to regularize the services of contract workers by conferring status of permanent employees of the electricity company and to pay all consequential benefits at par with the benefits paid to regular and permanent employees of the electricity company w.e.f. 1.1.1999. 4. Feeling aggrieved by the said award and directions the electricity company filed above mentioned Special Civil Application No. 14224 of 2008. 5. In the said petition being Special Civil Application No.14224 of 2008 the Court passed below quoted order on 2.12.2008:-- "Notice pending admission returnable on 22/12/2008. In the meantime and till the returnable date, status-quo as on today be maintained by both the sides." 6. Thus, vide said order dated 2.12.2008 the Court directed petitioner electricity company to maintain status-quo prevailing on 2.12.2008. 7. At this stage it is necessary and appropriate to recall that the award in question came to be passed on 1.1.2008 and it was to come in operation 60 days after the date of publication. The award, therefore would have come in operation and was required to be complied w.e.f. 1.3.2008 whereas the order granting interim relief was passed on 2.12.2008. Thus, when the order dated 2.12.2008 granting ad-interim relief was passed, the award was already in operation. 8. The award, therefore would have come in operation and was required to be complied w.e.f. 1.3.2008 whereas the order granting interim relief was passed on 2.12.2008. Thus, when the order dated 2.12.2008 granting ad-interim relief was passed, the award was already in operation. 8. It is also relevant to note that the Court, vide order dated 2.12.2008, did not stay the implementation and operation of the award dated 1.1.2008 but directed that the status-quo as on 2.12.2008 shall be maintained by both the sides. Meaning thereby as on the date when interim relief was granted i.e. as on 2.12.2008 the position which would be in operation in accordance with law would be the position which would have come in existence on implementation of award inasmuch as according to the provisions under I.D. Act the award had already come in operation w.e.f. 1.3.2008. That position was required to be maintained in light of the condition to maintain status-quo. 9. However, even if it was presumed that the petitioner electricity company had not acted upon and implemented the direction passed by the learned tribunal vide order dated 1.1.2008 until order dated 2.12.2008 came to be passed then also, the fact remained that the concerned 18 workmen were working with electricity company as the employees of the contractor of the petitioner electricity company and in their favour the direction vide impugned award dated 1.1.2008 was passed and consequently in view of the order dated 2.12.2008 the status-quo with regard to the said service condition was to be complied by the petitioner electricity company. 10. Subsequently application came to be admitted in May 2010 and the Court, at that time passed below quoted order on 6.5.2010: "1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya on behalf of petitioner; learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Patel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 7 and learned advocate Mrs. Sangeeta N. Pahwa on behalf of respondent No. 11 and 12. 2. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 7 and learned advocate Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 11 and 12. Though served on respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Nos. 8 to 10, no appearance is filed on behalf of them. 3. Rule. Learned advocate Mr. Mukesh Patel waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 7 and learned advocate Mrs. Sangeeta Pahwa waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No. 11 and 12. Though served on respondent Nos. 1 to 6 and Nos. 8 to 10, no appearance is filed on behalf of them. 3. In this matter, first order was passed by this Court on 02.12.2008 is quoted as under:--Notice pending admission returnable on 22/12/2008. In the meantime and till the returnable date, status-quo as on today be maintained by both the sides. Learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya submitted that concerned workmans are at present working. Learned advocate Mrs. Pahwa submitted that they are working for G.E.B. as employee of contractor. These facts has been disputed by learned advocate Ms. Lilu K. Bhaya. However, without going to factual dispute, considering the fact that whatever service condition of concerned workman from the date of first order, passed on 02.12.2008 shall remained continue and it is binding to petitioner to maintain status quo till Special Civil Application is finally decided." (emphasis supplied) 11. It is noticed from the said order dated 6.5.2010 that (a) even at that stage i.e. in May, 2010 also the respondent workmen were working with the petitioner company; and (b) the Court directed and clarified that the service condition which were applicable to the concerned 18 workmen as on 2.12.2008 shall remain in operation and will continue to be binding to both the sides until the petition is finally decided. 12. In view of the said orders dated 2.12.2008 and 6.5.2010 the petitioner electricity company is under obligation to maintain, protect and preserve the same service condition of the concerned 18 workmen which were applicable to them on 2.12.2008 in light of and in accordance with the effect of award dated 1.1.2008 and any modification in any manner whatsoever is not permissible in view of the said two orders, without permission and specific order by the Court granting any modification. 13. In this background the applicant union has taken out present application with the grievance that since September 2014 the petitioner electricity company has started committing breach of the order dated 2.12.2008 read with the order dated 6.5.2010. 13. In this background the applicant union has taken out present application with the grievance that since September 2014 the petitioner electricity company has started committing breach of the order dated 2.12.2008 read with the order dated 6.5.2010. It is alleged by the application union that:-- "2.5 the applicant states that vide circular dated 9.9.2014 the opponent has stated that old contract has come to an end and the process of new contract is started. The applicant states that in the said circular, it is also stated by the opponent that the process of tendering the contract is on its last stage and at present workers cannot be given work through any contract......... The applicant states that however, the applicant has come to know that no such tender process is initiated by the opponent, but the work is taken from the employees of the corporation. 2.6 The applicant states that earlier also, the opponent has discontinued 16 workers of the same applicant - union. The applicant states that in that case the applicant filed Civil Application for appropriate directions and after filing that civil application, the opponent corporation took all the workers in services. 2.7 The applicant states that in the meanwhile, on 18.9.2014, the Assistant Labour Commissioner has also addressed a letter to Chief Engineer, Gujarat State Electricity Corporation inter alia stating that the workers are required to be taken on work as per order dated 2.12.2008 and 6.5.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court. 2.8 the applicant states that the action of the opponent of not continuing the above workers in spite of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court is nothing but a willful and deliberate breach of the orders passed by this Hon'ble Court, which amounts to contempt under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In the above circumstances, the applicant filed Misc. Civil Application (for contempt) No. 3664 of 2014 before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 24.12.2014 was pleased to dispose of the Misc. Civil Application with a view to file appropriate application in the pending petition.... The applicant is therefore constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of this application." 14. Civil Application (for contempt) No. 3664 of 2014 before this Hon'ble Court. This Hon'ble Court vide order dated 24.12.2014 was pleased to dispose of the Misc. Civil Application with a view to file appropriate application in the pending petition.... The applicant is therefore constrained to approach this Hon'ble Court by way of this application." 14. On the strength of the said averments and allegations the applicant union has prayed, inter alia, that:-- "7(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct the opponent to give work to the workmen concerned in the present application immediately and further direct the opponent to consider the said workmen in the establishment of opponent w.e.f. 1.9.2014 and also pay salary and other benefits w.e.f. 1.9.2014, in the interest of justice; (B) YOUR LORDSHIPS be pleased to direct he opponents to forthwith comply with the order dated 2.12.2008 and 6.5.2010 passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application No. 14224 of 2008 by giving work to the concerned workmen in this application and to pay regular salary to them w.e.f. 1.9.2014, pending the admission, hearing and final disposal of the petition." 15. It is claimed, on the ground that the period of contract which was in operation at the relevant time came to an end and on the ground that further process of inviting tenders and awarding fresh contract is still in progress and new contract is not finalized and on the ground that as on date new contractor is not engaged by the electricity company, the concerned 18 workmen are not being engaged and they are not even paid salary at the same rate and in manner as is required to be paid in light of the award dated 1.1.2008 or in same manner as was being paid to them on 2.12.2008. 16. During his submissions at the time of hearing of present application learned Senior Counsel for the electricity company attempted to convey that since the contract has come to an end and any other contractor has yet not been engaged and contract is yet not finalized, the applicant's claim that they should be engaged and should be paid wages is not maintainable because the persons are to be engaged only if contract is in existence and in operation. It is also sought to be contended that some persons have started working with some establishment other than the petitioner electricity company and that therefore the claim in respect of such persons is not tenable. 16.1 To say the least, the stand taken and/or defence raised by the electricity company is completely unfair and unjust and deserves to be deprecated, more so in face of the order dated 2.12.2008 read with order dated 6.5.2010. 16.2 the respondent's stand or defence or explanation is not only intentional avoidance of Court's order but it is - if not crafty then very skillful - circumvention of direction to maintain status-quo. 17. The said orders imposes the condition and obligation on the petitioner electricity company to continue to engage the concerned 18 workmen, until dispute raised in the petition is finally decided by the Court however, the electricity company undisputedly and without seeking Court's permission unilaterally and arbitrarily stopped engaging the workmen. 17.1 In light of the direction and condition to maintain status-quo it cannot, by any stretch of imagination or convenient and wishful interpretation of the order, claim that since period of contract came to an end its obligation to engage the workers has come to an end. 17.2 The obligation to continue to engage the concerned 18 workmen during pendency of the petition atleast in similar manner as they were engaged on 2.12.2008 and to pay said workers their wages in similar manner as they were being paid on 2.12.2008 continues and shall continue to operate until final decision in the petition or until any other order modifying said obligation is passed by the Court after hearing the parties. Actually, in view of the fact that according to the provision under the Act the award had come into operation when order came to be passed on 2.12.2008 and that therefore in view of the direction the company should maintain that status which was in operation in eye of law and as per the provision under the Act. However, even if it is assumed that on 2.12.2008 the workers were working with the company through contractor then also the impugned action of the company is not sustainable being arbitrary, unjust and in breach of Court's order and direction - condition dated 2.12.2008. 18. However, even if it is assumed that on 2.12.2008 the workers were working with the company through contractor then also the impugned action of the company is not sustainable being arbitrary, unjust and in breach of Court's order and direction - condition dated 2.12.2008. 18. It is really unfortunate that the company, which is in public sector, has raised such contention in respect of the workmen who have earned the award in their favour. 19. From the averments made in the application it appears that it is since September 2014 that the original petitioner electricity company has stopped engaging concerned 18 workmen. 20. In such circumstances it is but obvious that the workmen, for earning their livelihood, would be compelled to temporarily engage themselves in some income generating activity so as to maintain themselves and their family members. 21. Such action of the concerned 18 workmen, more particularly when they are opposing writ petition cannot be termed as abandonment of service and it reflects insensitive thinking of the company. 22. The concerned 18 workmen are without salary since atleast 6.9.2014. 22.1 On the ground that the process of awarding fresh contract the company is consuming time and in the interregnum concerned 18 workmen are made to survive without work and they find themselves without salary, and that too despite the order dated 2.12.2008. 23. Having regard to the fact that in view of the orders passed by the Court in main petition and in Civil Application which the concerned 18 workmen were compelled to file earlier, it is clear that the electricity company's obligation to engage the workmen and pay their salary in view of the order dated 2.12.2008 continues to operate and bind the petitioner electricity company. 23.1 On the ground that the period of contract has come to an end and/or contract is not available the petitioner electricity company cannot escape the obligation which it was soldering as on 2.12.2008 and cast by order dated 2.12.2008. 23.2 During the hearing of this application the Court is informed that the electricity company will need still one month time to finalize the tender which is floated by it. 23.2 During the hearing of this application the Court is informed that the electricity company will need still one month time to finalize the tender which is floated by it. In the facts of the case the employer can afford the luxury of consuming long time in finalizing the tender and awarding contracts, but the workmen, who are denied work and wages on account of unjust and arbitrary action of employer company can ill afford such luxury and every day which passes without work and wages is crucial for them. 24. Under the circumstances and having regard to the orders dated 2.2.2008 and 6.5.2010 following order is passed: "The grievance and claim of the concerned 18 workmen for their wages from 1.9.2014 until the electricity company starts paying salary to the concerned workmen in pursuance of present order, will be considered at the time of hearing of main petition. It is clarified that the said grievance and claim of the concerned workmen is kept alive until petition is taken up for hearing and if the action of the petitioner is ultimately held unjust, then appropriate order in addition to direction to pay interest will be passed. The petitioner electricity company shall start payment of salary to the concerned workmen w.e.f. 16.2.2016 in similar manner as it was being paid to the concerned workmen immediately before 2.12.2008 and as on 2.12.2008. If the contract is not in operation and/or the contractor is not available then until the fresh contract is finalized then the petitioner electricity company will engage the contract workers either itself or through any other contractor who are awarded contract and are executing contract work at Jamnagar and/or at Sikka unit of the petitioner electricity company. It is clarified that if the petitioner electricity company itself engages the concerned workmen so as to comply the order dated 2.12.2008 then such arrangement will not create any fresh or new liability or equity other than what is created by the award dated 1.1.2008 and such arrangement will be continued as the arrangement for purpose of complying the interim order of this Court. It will be ensured that the order dated 2.12.2008 is complied in its terms and spirit and the concerned workmen are not left without work and/or without wages on any ground including the ground that the period of contract has come to an end and/or contractor is not available. It will be ensured that the order dated 2.12.2008 is complied in its terms and spirit and the concerned workmen are not left without work and/or without wages on any ground including the ground that the period of contract has come to an end and/or contractor is not available. It would be open to the electricity company to engage the concerned workmen, as stopgap arrangement, through any other contractor operating at Sikka. The said arrangement will be without prejudice to the rights and claim of both the sides. With the aforesaid clarification the application is disposed of. Rule is made absolute to the aforesaid extent."