(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. Petitioner was original respondent in Special Civil Application No.16931 of 2010. Such petition filed by the respondents came to be partially allowed. Learned Single Judge confirmed the award of the Labour Court dated 21.5.2010 insofar as the same pertained to reinstatement of the workman in service. However, direction for payment of 20% back wages came to be deleted.
2. Since the present respondents did not reinstate the applicant in service, present contempt petition came to be filed.
3. We had issued notice on 5.3.2012, making it returnable on 2.4.2012. Thereafter, on 16.4.2012, we found that though served, no one had remained present. Under the circumstances, we had passed following further order:
"Under the circumstances, the petition is adjourned to 30th April 2012. By the said date, we expect that the respondents shall carry out the direction for reinstatement of the workman unless the same has been stayed by any higher court, failing which they shall remain personally present before the Court to answer the charges of contempt as also why despite service of notice they failed to appear before the Court.
S.O.
to 30th April 2012."
4. On 30.4.2012, once again, there was insufficient representation on behalf of the respondents, of-course order dated 27.4.2012 came to passed reinstating the applicant in service, subject to outcome of Letters Patent Appeal that the Government may file. The applicant was earlier required to give an undertaking that such reinstatement will not entitle him to any benefits of permanency and the same would be subject to outcome of Letters Patent Appeal. We, therefore, passed following further order:-
"We are perturbed by the nonappearance of the respondents on previous occasion despite due service of the notice of the Court. Today also no reply has been filed, no explanation has been rendered as to why despite service of notice of contempt proceedings, the respondents who happen to be responsible Government Officers chose not to defend themselves. We also notice that reinstatement order contains clause of undertaking to be given by the applicant which is wholly unnecessary.
Under the circumstances, S.O. to 7.5.2012, on which date both the respondents shall remain personally present. They shall also file an affidavit explaining why previously they had not responded to Court's contempt notice. They shall also indicate why no cost should be imposed on them. Respondents shall reinstate the applicants without insisting on his undertaking as provided in order dated 27.4.2012."
5. Today, learned Assistant Government Pleader Shri Rahul Dave appeared for the respondents and filed their affidavits. He apologized for non appearance and non-complying with the Court's order earlier. We accepted such apology and closed the issue.
6. With respect to the reinstatement of the applicant in service, counsel for the applicant pointed out that despite the order of this Court, he was made to give an undertaking before his reinstatement. Learned Assistant Government Pleader pointed out that such steps were taken before this Court's order dated 30.4.2012 came to be communicated to the respondents.
7. In facts of the case, we are of the opinion that once we had insisted that no such undertaking to be obtained, even if such undertaking is filed due to non-compliance of the order, same cannot be allowed to have any effect. Under the circumstances, the applicant shall be allowed to withdraw his undertaking. In any case, it is clarified that such undertaking shall have no effect.
8. Question of payment of back wages for the period from the date of the Labour Court's award, namely 21.5.2010, till actual payment still remains. Learned Assistant Government Pleader stated that such payment will be made latest by 25th June 2012, unless any stay is granted by higher Court.
9. On such statement and with further direction that such payment shall be made within the time permitted, of-course subject to any stay being granted by any higher Court, even if such payment is made, it shall be subject to outcome of further proceedings, this contempt petition is disposed of at this stage.
(AKIL KURESHI, J.) (C.L.
SONI, J.) omkar Top