SHAILESH KUMAR SAHU vs AMITABH JAIN

These contempt petitions have been filed by individual workman against the officers of the State alleging willful disobedience of orders passed in

their respective cases whereby the order of stay of reinstatement, passed earlier in the petitions filed by the State was vacated.

Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that against the award of reinstatement passed in favour of individual applicants in their respective

petitions, the State had preferred separate petitions challenging the awards. Initially, an interim order of stay of reinstatement was passed by this

Court. However, later on it was brought to the notice of the Court by the workmen that on the date when the writ petitioner filed petition and made

prayer for interim relief, workmen were already reinstated. Upon this disclosure, the interim orders passed earlier in all the cases were vacated.

Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the observations that reinstatement would be subject to final outcome of

the petition, upon vacating interim order, the representation was under an obligation to immediately reinstate each of the workmen without insisting on

filing any kind of affidavit which has been done in the present case. He would submit that the last drawn wages ought to be immediately paid without

insisting on filing the affidavit. Learned counsel for the applicant would further submit that letters which has been issued to individual applicants and

which are identical in its contents, are against the spirit of order passed by this Court in each of the petitions vacating earlier stay order which was

passed in favour of the State.

Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, appearing for officers who is also present in the Court would submit that there was no intention to

flout any order of the Court. He would submit that officers on his own understanding of the provision contained in Section 17(B) Industrial Dispute

Act, issued letters only to fecilitate payment of wages. In any case, it is argued, unless there is specific direction by the Court, it cannot be said that

vacating of stay would oblige Respondent authority to reinstate the employee where the award is executable.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, I find that in all the cases that award of reinstatement was challenged by the state by filing seperate

petitions, an interim orders were passed staying execution of award and reinstatement of individual workman subject to compliance of Section 17(B)

of the ID Act. However, the workmen moved applications for vacating stay and this Court having found that the workmen were initially reinstated in

service and later on , petition was filed and stay was granted, only on that ground interim orders were vacated.

However, there was no positive direction by this Court to respondents to reinstate the workmen or pay monetary benefits. A claim under the law may

be enforceable in the Court and even assuming that the workmen are entitled to payment of last wages drawn subject to fulfillment of statutory

requirement incorporated under Section 17(B) of the Industrial Dispute Act, in the absence of there being any such direction in the order vacating

interim order, in my considered opinion, no case of contempt is made out. The contempt petitioners are left to workout their remedy to seek either

reinstatement in service or for payment of last wages drawn under Section 17(B) of the Industrial dispute Act either in the pending writ petitions or

before the executing Court. All contempt petitions are accordingly dismissed.