AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T.N.C. Rangarajan, J.—The petitioner complains that the Respondent has wilfully disobeyed the order of the Labour Court dated 8-4-1994, which directed the respondent to pay Rs. 800/- towards compensation, back-wages and half of the wages, beginning from April, 1994, and that the deposit shall be made by the respondent within seven days from the date of the order. In the alternative, the respondent was given the option to reinstate the petitioner in any suitable job on the last pay drawn scale in lieu of payment of half of the wages from April, 1994, onwards. According to the petitioner, the sum of Rs. 800/- has not been paid as stipulated and no steps were taken to give him the alternative job or to give him the wages as directed in order. Thereupon, an interim order was made in the contempt petition on 7-11-1994 derivation the respondent to comply with the order.
The Respondent has filed a counter-affidavit stating that the order of the Labour court was received by it on 27-5-1994, and by letter dated 5.6.1994, the Respondent had called the petitioner to join the duty in the alternative job offered to him. In compliance of the interim direction given on 7-11-1994, the Respondent states that the amount has been deposited on 16-11-1994. According to the Respondent, there is no wilful disobedience on its part and no cases for contempt is made out.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that no effort has been made by the respondent to comply with the order of the Labour Court until an interim direction is given by the Court. He stressed the fact that the sum of Rs. 800/- has not been paid, as directed and that was not subjected to the offer of alternative employment. As regards the alternative job, it was submitted that the same librarian''s job was offered to his as a ''part-time casual job'', and he protested it since he was advised that his main case before the Labour Court gets jeopardised. It was submitted that since the respondent obeyed the order only after the interim direction was given by their Court, here was wilful disobedience upto that point and that the respondent should be punished.
On the other hand, the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that steps have been taken by it to comply with the order as soon as the order was received by it, and it was the petitioner who was reluctant to accept the hob offered to him. The learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that these was an offer of alternative employment, and that the delay if any in compliance should be considered leniently, as there was no intention to disobey the order.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner has joined out that the amount has been deposited only upto August, 1994, and he apprehends that the further amount may not be deposited in respect of the subsequent months.
However, I am of the opinion that since the respondent made an offer to provide alternative employment, it cannot be said that there was any intention on the part of the Respondent to wilfully disobey the order. Since the respondent has been hauled up for contempt, I am sure it will be a lesson to the respondent not to delay the further deposits required to be made. Since I am of the view that the respondents is not likely to disobey the order, I do not think that it is necessary to punish the respondent. The Contempt Case is, therefore, closed with an admonition to the respondent not to repeat this in future. The petitioner is permitted to withdraw the amount deposited in the Court. Since the petitioner has been driven to file this contempt Case, I direct the Respondent to pay the costs Rs. 500/- to the petitioner.