This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioners praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the respondent for contempt of Court, for disobeying the order of this Court, dated 1.8.2006, made in M.P.No.2 of 2006, in W.P.No.24345 of 2006.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition, it has been stated that the petitioners were working as Tally Clerks on Board, under the respondent. The Dock Labour Board had merged with Chennai Port Trust, in the year, 2001. The merger contemplated rationalisation of manning scales and total integration with the Port Trust. The merger had taken place, on 25.5.2001, by way of a settlement arrived at, under
section 12(3) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Before the finalisation of the integration, in respect of rationalisation of manning scales, the matter was referred to the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkatta, for adjudication. The National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkatta, had passed an award, dated 19.4.2006. However, the respondent, without waiting for the award of the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkatta, had initiated a discussion with some Unions. The award was passed, on 19.4.2006. The respondent and five of the unions had entered into a settlement, on 6.6.2006, purported to be under
section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.
3. It has been further submitted that when the National Industrial Tribunal, Kolkatta, had passed the award, the Chennai Port Trust and the Unions concerned cannot enter into a settlement, ignoring the award. The petitioners, as well as the other similarly placed persons are adversely affected by the subsequent settlement, dated 6.6.2006, which brings 60:40 ratio, in respect of Cargo Handling Workers with Shore workers. In such circumstances, the petitioner had filed the petition before this Court, in W.P.No.24345 of 2006.
4. By an order, dated 1.8.2006, this Court had passed an order, in M.P.No.2 of 2006, in W.P.No.24345 of 2006, granting an order of interim injunction restraining the second respondent, his men, subordinates and other persons claiming under him from enforcing the settlement, dated 6.6.2006, arrived at under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947, pending disposal of the writ petition.
5. The said order had been communicated to the second respondent, by way of a Telegram, dated 1.8.2006, and by way of a notice, dated 2.8.2006. In spite of having knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court, on 1.8.2006, the respondent had enforced the settlement, dated 6.6.2006, entered into, under
Section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Thus, the respondent had committed contempt of this Court by wilfully disobeying its order, dated 1.8.2006. In such circumstances, the respondent is to be punished for contempt of Court.
6. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent, he had denied the allegations made by the petitioners. Even though it has been stated that it was agreed to have the ration of 60:40 in postings, in respect of Cargo Handling Workers and Shore workers, there was no settlement arrived at, on 6.6.2006, as alleged by the petitioners.
7. Further, the respondent had tendered his unconditional apology, in the event of this Court coming to the conclusion that he had committed contempt of Court.
8. In the reply affidavit filed by the petitioners, it has been stated that if the respondent contends that there is no settlement, there cannot be any change in the service conditions of the petitioners. Any such change would attract
section 9A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and it would be illegal in the eye of law. The respondent is making inconsistent and contradictory statements, only in order to avoid the contempt proceedings initiated against him.
9. In view of the averments made on behalf of the petitioners, as well as the respondent, and on a perusal of the records available, this court is of the considered view that the petitioners have not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondent for the contempt of Court. They have not been in a position to show that the respondent had wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court, dated 1.8.2006, made in M.P.No.2 of 2006, in W.P.No.24345 of 2006.
10. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondent, he had clearly stated that no settlement had been concluded, on 6.6.2006, as alleged by the petitioners. While so, it is for the petitioners to prove that such a settlement had been concluded, under section 18(1) of the Industrial Disputes M.JAICHANDREN J., lan Act, 1947, affecting the service conditions of the petitioners. Except for the allegations made in the affidavit filed in support of the contempt petition, the petitioners have not placed before this Court any documentary evidence to substantiate their allegations that the respondent had concluded the settlement, dated 6.6.2006, with certain employees Unions, contrary to the order passed by this Court, on 1.8.2006.
11. As such, the contempt petition is devoid of merits. Hence, it stands dismissed. No costs.
lan To:
Mr.K.Suresh I.A.S.
The Chairman Chennai Port Trust Chennai