(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE AKIL KURESHI)
1. The applicant alleges breach of contempt of order passed by this Court dated 03.08.2010 in Special Civil Application No. 10520 of 1998.
2. Brief facts are that the applicant workman was employed by respondent as instructor. His services came to be terminated in the year 1985. The termination was challenged before the labour court. The Labour Court allowed allowed reference by award dated 20.8.1998. Labour Court set aside termination. Directed reinstatement with continuity and 75 per cent back wages.
3. The management challenged award before this Court. The learned Single Judge by his order dated 03.08.2010, deleted the direction for back wages. However, maintained order for reinstatement with continuity in service and consequential benefits.
4. It is not in dispute that the applicant stand reinstated in service, though after some dispute. The question is what would be his correct salary upon such reinstatement. The management till now paid monthly salary of Rs.4500.00. The applicant contends that he should receive regular salary in regular pay scale which is much higher.
5. Learned counsel Shri Nanavati for the management stated that at the Bar that the Management has revised the salary of the applicant to Rs.7000.00 per month with effect from March, 2012.
6. The counsel for the applicant vehemently contended that in view of the direction for considering service of the applicant continuous, the applicant was required to be placed in regular scale as was done in case of his junior. On the other hand, counsel for the management submitted that the applicant was engaged purely on ad-hoc basic, on monthly contractual rates. His case, therefore, cannot be compared with the recruitments made later on after following regular procedure and which employees are part of the direct payment scheme under the Grant-in-Aid provided by the Government.
6. To our mind, such issues cannot be judged in a contempt petition. Opponents having reinstated the applicant in service, what would be the exact effect of continuity of service, in the facts of the present case, is not possible to be decided in contempt proceedings.
7. In view of the above, this contempt petition is disposed of, leaving it open to the applicant to agitate all the question in an appropriate proceedings.
8. Subject to the above observations, this petition is disposed of. Notice is discharged. No order as to costs.
(Akil Kureshi,J.) (C.L.Soni,J.) an vyas Top