AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present contempt petition has been filed against the alleged non compliance of the order dated 19.10.2016 passed in WPL No. 206/2016. This
Court on an earlier occasion had issued notice to the respondent and also directed that in case of non compliance, they would remain present before
this Court.
Today, Shri Animesh Verma, advocate enters appearance on behalf of the respondent along with 9 cheques payable to the 9 petitioners herein and
states that the letters which were being sent to the petitioners have come back with a note of either they were not available at their address or their
addresses were not traceable. He submits that he has brought those cheques before this Court so that the same can be given to the counsel for the
petitioners who in turn may hand over the same to the respective petitioners.
At this juncture, counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not have any objection in accepting or receiving the same.
Accordingly, the 9 cheques were handed over to the counsel for the petitioners before the Court itself and receipt in this regard was given by the
counsel for the petitioners to the counsel for the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in an earlier contempt petition i.e. Contempt Case (C)No.566 of 2017, 40 cheques were handed
over by the respondent to the petitioners of which one cheque bearing No.888682 of the State Bank of India issued in favour of one Vijay Swarnakar
for an amount of Rs.55,500/- has been dishonoured on account of not matching specimen signature. Accordingly, a fresh cheque amounting to
Rs.55,500/- issued in favour of Vijay Swarnakar is handed over to the counsel for the petitioners before the Court itself, who in turn handed over
dishonoured cheque to the counsel for the respondent.
Be that as it may, since the respondent have honoured the order passed by this Court and issued cheques in favour of the respective 9 petitioners
for making payments towards the compliance of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would
be served in keeping the contempt petition pending any further. The contempt petition thus stands disposed of and the respondent stands discharged
from the contempt proceeding. However, liberty is reserved to the petitioners to bring it to the notice of the respondent if there is any calculation error
or any shortfall of payment made by the respondent.
No order as to costs.