This contempt case is filed alleging that the respondents herein have wilfully disobeyed Annexure 2 interim order passed by this Court on 14.2.2012 in W.P.(C)No.3682 of 2012.
2. By Annexure 2 interim order passed on 14.2.2012 in W.P. (C)No.3682 of 2012, this Court stayed the termination of the services of the petitioners until further orders. The writ petition was filed alleging that though the petitioners have been included in rank list prepared after a written test, interview and physical test were conducted, they have not been given regular employment but only employment on contract basis for a period of six months and that steps are now being taken to terminate their services and to fill up the vacancies by conducting a fresh selection. It is alleged that after the aforesaid interim order was passed on 14.2.2014, Annexure 3 and like proceedings were issued whereby instead of paying a consolidated remuneration of Rs.7,990/- per mensem, the respondents decided to pay Rs.489/- per day to the petitioners, that the alteration of the said stipulation as also the stipulation in Annexure 1 that the petitioners will not be entitled for weekly off days, leave days or holidays was not acceptable to the petitioners, that they intimated this fact to the Dairy Manager who thereupon informed the petitioners that they need not report for work from 3.4.2014 if they are not willing to accept the terms and conditions set out in Annexure 3 and that when the petitioners reported for work on 3.4.2014, they were denied employment. This action is characterised as one in violation of the order passed by this Court.
3. A reading of Annexure 3 order indicates that the employer has offered to pay the petitioners remuneration at the rate of Rs.489/- per day. It works out to Rs.12,714/- per mensem. The fixed remuneration initially paid to the petitioners was Rs.7,990/-. The remuneration has only gone up. However notwithstanding the fact that remuneration has gone up and also for the reason that certain benefits were taken away when Annexure 3 order was issued, the petitioners refused to accept the terms of engagement set out in Annexure 3. The Dairy Manager who issued Annexure 3 thereupon informed the petitioners that if they are not willing to accept the terms set out in Annexure 3, they need not report for duty. Such conduct cannot, in my opinion, be termed one in violation of Annexure 2 interim order passed by this Court. This Court did not in Annexure 2 interim order restrain the respondents from altering the service conditions of the petitioners. The only order passed by this Court was one staying the termination of the services of the petitioners. The Dairy Manager did not terminate their services. Instead, he offered them employment on different terms, one of which was certainly for the benefit of the petitioners namely the remuneration. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the terms and stipulations regarding the weekly off, leave and other conditions relating to employment, they should have in my opinion raised that issue in other appropriate proceedings instead of refusing to accept the terms set out in Annexure 3. If the petitioners have been denied employment with effect from 3.4.2014, they have none to blame except themselves. That apart it is evident from Annexure 4 letter sent on the instructions of the employer that mode of remuneration has been changed not only in respect of the petitioners but in respect of all Plant Attenders engaged on contract basis.
I therefore find no reason to initiate proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The contempt case fails and is accordingly dismissed. It is however clarified that nothing contained in this judgment will stand in the way of the petitioners from seeking appropriate reliefs in the writ petition.
vpv Sd/-
P.N.RAVINDRAN JUDGE