Court No. - 5
Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 4542 of 2011 Applicant :- Hari Lal Chauhan Opposite Party :- K.M. Singh G.M. The Kishan Sahakari Chini Mill Ltd.
Counsel for Applicant :- Shyam Narain,Gopal Narain,S. Niranjan,Sudhanshu Narain Counsel for Opposite Party :- S.C.,Bed Vyas Misra,Ravindra Singh,V.B. Mishra,Vrindavan Mishra
Hon'ble Surya Prakash Kesarwani,J.
Heard Sri Sudhanshu Narain, learned counsel for the applicant and Sri Girish Vishwakarma, learned Standing Counsel.
This contempt application has been filed by the applicant alleging wilful disobedience of the order of the writ Court dated 6.7.2011in Writ-A No.33295 of 2011 (Hari Lal Chauhan v. M.D./Chairman, U.P. Co-Operative Sugar Factory Fed. and others).
The order dated 6.7.2011 passed by the Writ Court in the aforesaid writ petition is reproduced below:
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V.B. Mishra, counsel for the respondents.
Two reliefs have been prayed for in the present writ petition i. e. (a) for payment of V.R.S. Amount and (b) for wages in terms of the award, as the writ petition filed by the employer has been dismissed.
So far as the second relief is concerned, petitioner has statutory remedy under Section 33-C (1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act for getting the money in terms of the award computed and therefore no interference in that regard is called for.
So far as the amount due to the petitioner in terms of the V.R.S. and consequential benefits thereof are concerned, he is at liberty to represent his grievance before respondent no. 2.
In view of the aforesaid, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation ventilating all his grievances before respondent no. 2 within two weeks from today along with certified copy of this order. On such representation being made, respondent no. 2 shall consider and decide the same by means of a reasoned speaking order, preferably within eight weeks from the date the representation is so filed. All consequential action shall be taken immediately thereafter."
In para 3 of the affidavit of compliance dated 14.10.2014, the opposite party has stated that the representation of the applicant has been decided on 12.9.2011 and the amount has been offered to the applicant-petitioner for payment. A copy of the order dated 12.9.2011, deciding the representation has been filed as Annexure-2 to the affidavit of compliance dated 14.10.2014.
Perusal of the order dated 5.11.2019 passed by this Court shows that a sum of Rs.49,372/- has been paid by the opposite party to the applicant by Cheque No.104587 dated 25.10.2019.
Today, in compliance to the order of this Court dated 5.11.2019, Sri Ravindra Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party has produced an account payee Cheque No.104588 dated 7.11.2019 amounting to Rs. 37034/- drawn on State Bank of India, Branch Mubarakpur, Azamgarh in favour of the applicant which has been issued by the opposite party No.2, Kisan Sahkari Chini Mills Ltd. Sathiyon, District Azamgarh.
This Court requested the learned counsel for the applicant to receive the aforesaid cheque in compliance to the order of this Court dated 5.11.2019, but Sri Sudhanshu Narain, learned counsel for the applicant has refused to accept the cheque. However, he states that the cheque may be sent by the opposite party directly by post to the applicant.
In view of the statement given by the learned counsel for the applicant, as afore noted, I direct that the opposite party shall deliver the aforesaid cheque to the applicant either personally or by registered post within three weeks from today.
In view of the aforesaid, I do not find any good reason to proceed further in this contempt application. Therefore, this contempt application is disposed of.
Order Date :- 27.11.2019 Ak/