(Per : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE D.A.MEHTA) 1 This petition has been preferred praying for following reliefs :
?SA. YOUR LORDSHIP MAY BE PLEASED TO :- direct the deposit respondent no.2 of Rs.1,67,000/- Total (Rs.202400/- - Rs.35000/-) as per the order of the certificate of outstanding dues of the petitioner.
B. To contempt notice with charge sheet as per the contempt act for non implementation order of the Mr.Justice Rathod attached herewith??.
2 The learned Advocate for the petitioner has referred to order dated 01.05.2006 made by this Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.K.Rathod) in Special Civil Application No. 7876 of 2006 whereunder following directions were issued :
?S4. In view of this submission, it is directed to respondent authority to recover the amount as early as possible by effective measures from respondent no.2 at least within a period of six months from the date of receiving the copy of the said order??.
3 It appears that thereafter respondent No.1- authority has initiated action against respondent No.2-employer for recovery of amount due as per award of Labour Court and recovery certificate issued by the Labour Court. Despite two notices issued by respondent ? Mamlatdar, respondent No.2 has failed to make any payment.
4 However, in the meantime a sum of Rs.35,000/- appears to have been deposited by respondent No.2-employer. Respondent No.2-employer filed an independent petition being Special Civil Application No. 20079 of 2006 whereunder the award of the Labour Court and the consequential recovery application have been challenged on the ground that the same were obtained exparte. In Special Civil Application No. 20079 of 2006 on 19.12.2006 the Court (Coram : Hon'ble Ms. Justice R.M. Doshit) passed the following order :
?SHeard the learned Advocates on interim relief.
Ad interim relief is confirmed. The sum of Rs.35,000/- deposited in this Court shall be invested in a nationalized bank in a fixed deposit, initially for a period of 3 years. The amount on maturity shall be reinvested thereaafter for every one year until the petition is heard and finally decided??.
5 It appears that the petitioner sought revival and restoration of the main petition being Special Civil Application No. 7876 of 2006 by moving Misc. Civil Application No. 2768 of 2007. The High Court (Coram : Hon'ble Mr.Justice H.K.Rathod) vide order dated 22.10.2007 has dismissed the Misc. Civil Application seeking restoration of the petition.
6 In the aforesaid set of facts and circumstances of the case, it is apparent that this petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against respondent No.1 - authority is misconceived. Firstly, the order of which the contempt is alleged, viz. order dated 01.05.2006, cannot be stated to be operative. Vide order dated 19.12.2006 made in Special Civil Application No. 20079 of 2006, filed by respondent No.2 herein, the award and the recovery certificate of the Labour Court are no longer operative. It appears, prima facie, the Court has found substance in the contention of the petitioner of Special Civil Application No. 20079 of 2006, respondent No.2 herein, that the order was obtained exparte.
7 Secondly, in light of the aforesaid factual matrix it is not possible to state that respondent No.1 ? authority has deliberately and willfully acted in a manner so as to disobey the earlier order dated dated 01.05.2006. In fact, as noted hereinbefore, respondent No.1 ? authority had already initiated appropriate recovery proceedings by issuance of notices to respondent No.2.
8 Thirdly, the present petition prima facie appears to be barred by limitation considering the fact that the petition has been preferred on 10.12.2007 whereas the order of which contempt is alleged is dated 01.05.2006 i.e. the petition has been filed beyond a period of 12 months.
9 Hence, for the aforesaid stated reasons, the petition does not merit acceptance and is summarily rejected.
Sd/-
Sd/-
(D.A.
Mehta, J.) (H.B. Antani, J.) M.M.BHATT Top