CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsDivision Bench(1998) 11 DEL CK 0094

Chathia Kaur and Others vs Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi and Another

Delhi High Court · Decided on 10 November 1998 · Citation: (1999) 77 DLT 259 : (1999) 1 LLJ 1275

HON’BLE JUDGES
R.C. Lahoti, J · C.K. Mahajan, J
CASE NUMBER
C.C.P. No. 23 of 1996 in C.W. No. 4141 of 1995

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 399 words

CCP23/97

1.

Heard.

2.

Though there is a prayer for adjournment but the same is refused being unjustified. Heard finally.

3.

There was an award made u/s 33-C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act in favor of late Virender Pandit the husband of petitioner No. 1 and father of petitioner No. 2 to 4, which directed payment of Rs. 47,098/- on account of wages. The award having been made on 22.5.1993 was not implemented by the respondents. In the year 1995, the petitioners approached this Courts by filing a writ petition seeking implementation of the award. By order dated 9.11.1995 made in CWP 414/95 this Court directed the award to be implemented within three months from the date of the communication of the order of the Court. Even that was not done.

4.

The petitioners thereafter filed present petition under Sections 11 and 12 of Contempt of Courts Act for initiating Contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents. During the pendency of the petition, in the year 1997 the amount has been paid to the petitioners obviously under the pressure of these proceedings. In the counter respondents have come out with the plea that they were seeking legal opinion so as to avoid future complications and that has resulted in delay. Explanation so furnished can hardly be treated as satisfactory. It is clear that the respondents were dealing with the petitioners'' claim with lethargy and even mandate issued by the Court did not have requisite effect on them.

5.

Inasmuch as payment has been released to the petitioners during the pendency of these proceedings we are not inclined to take a serious view of the matter though we do feel that the petitioners must be compensated for delay in payment. While we do condemn the action of the respondents and such of the officials as have been responsible for the delay, we direct that interest calculated @ 12% p.a. from 9-11-1995 (the date of the order of the Court in CWP) up to the date of payment shall be released to the petitioner within two months from today. In addition an amount of Rs. 2,000/- (two thousand ) shall be paid to the petitioners by way of costs of these proceedings.

6.

After releasing the payment to the petitioner the respondent may, if so advised fix the responsibility for delay on the erring officials and recover the amount from him/them.