AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
This contempt case, coming on the office note, the Court made the following :
The office raised the following objections (1) Petitioner to state as to how the CC lies as against the order in the writ petition as there is no direction in the petition presented against the order in I.D. No. 1/79 dated 3-2-1984, on the file of the Labour Court, Guntur.
The advocate represented as follows :
"This C.C. lies as against the order of Labour Court, which was confirmed by this Hon''ble Court in W.P. No. 307 of 1985. Post before Court for orders."
It is submitted that the contempt case lies only against the order in I.D. No. 1/1979 dated 3-2-84 but not against the order in writ petition which was dismissed.
Submitted for orders as to maintainability before single Judge.
The petitioner initiated proceedings in I.D. No. 1 of 1979 and the Tribunal by order dated February 3, 1984 made an award directing reinstatement of the petitioner with consequential benefits. The Management filed W.P. No. 307 of 1985 and this Court by order dated July 28, 1988, dismissed the writ petition confirming the award of the Tribunal below. Now the contempt application has been filed by the petitioner stating that the respondents have disobeyed the orders of this Court. The office raised objection whether the contempt application is maintainable against the award of the Industrial Tribunal which was confirmed by this Court. The contention of Sri Ramachandra Rao, learned counsel for petitioner is is that once this Court has confirmed the Award of the Tribunal, the non-implementation of the Award would amount to disobedience of the order of this Court and therefore the petitioner could invoke the jurisdiction for punishing the contemnor, under S. 12 of the Contempt of Courts, Act, 1971. I find no force in the contention. No doubt the Tribunal has passed an award directing reinstatement of the petitioner with backwages, etc. Whether the order is implemented or not is not for the Court to go into. This Court has considered and confirmed the award in the writ petition. Therefore it is open to the petitioner to have the Award implemented according to law. While confirming the award, this Court did not alter to modify the award in any form. Under, those circumstances, the contempt case dose not lie. The office objection is accordingly upheld. It is open to the petitioner to have the award implemented in appropriate forum according to law.
Order accordingly.