Supreme Court of India
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY AND ORS.versusRAJESH MITTAL AND ORS.
- Citation
- 2019 INSC 12
- Decided
- 4 January 2019
- Disposal
- Dismissed
- Bench
- A M KHANWILKAR
Holding
The Court held that the order did not contain a specific direction for reinstatement; therefore, no contempt was established and the contempt petitions were dismissed.
Summary
The petitioners, former daily‑wage workers of U.P. Jal Nigam, claimed that the Supreme Court’s order of 7 September 2015 required their reinstatement after they were retrenched in 1991, and filed contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience by the department. The Court observed that the order merely directed that any future vacancy on the daily‑wage/muster‑roll list be filled by retrenched employees in order of seniority, and that a circular dated 7 April 2015, issued under Section 6Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, effected this preference. No specific direction for reinstatement or placement on the regular pay‑scale was contained in the order, and the petitioners were not parties to the Special Leave Petitions that were disposed of on that basis. Consequently, the Court held that there was no wilful disobedience and contempt jurisdiction could not be invoked on the basis of impressions. The petitioners also could not claim entitlement to regular Group D posts without meeting the prescribed eligibility criteria. The contempt petitions were therefore dismissed and the rule discharged.
Issues considered
- The Supreme Court order of 7 September 2015 – whether it mandated reinstatement of the retrenched workmen or only preference for future vacancies.
- Whether the respondents’ reliance on the circular of 7 April 2015 and the order amounts to contempt for non‑compliance.
- Whether the petitioners are entitled to regular Group D appointments in the absence of a specific direction.
- Whether the petitioners, not being parties to the earlier Special Leave Petitions, can invoke the order for reinstatement.
Legislation cited
- U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947s. 25F, s. 6N, s. 6Q
Subjects
contempt of courtindustrial disputereinstatementretrenchmentseniority listdaily wage workersU.P. Industrial Disputes ActSection 6QSupreme Court ordercircular
Judgment
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 223 223
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY AND ORS. A
v.
RAJESH MITTAL AND ORS.
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 817 of 2018)
In B
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 309 of 2016)
In
(S.L.P (C) No. 4470 of 2014)
C
JANUARY 04, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Contempt – Contempt jurisdiction – Invocation of – On facts,
in a industrial dispute, order passed by the Supreme Court that as
and when any vacancy arises on daily wages/muster roll, the D
preference to be given to terminated/retrenched employee of the
department – Contempt petition by the former employees against
the department that they were not reinstated and regularized against
the vacant posts – Held: Special Leave Petitions were disposed of
in the light of circular which contemplates that the retrenched
employees will be re-engaged in case any requirement arises and in E
order of seniority – There was no direction to reinstate the petitioners
or to place them in minimum or regular pay scale – Contempt
jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of impressions, when
the order of the Court does not contain any direction for
reinstatement or for grant of regular pay scale – Contempt would F
be made out when there is wilful disobedience to the orders of this
Court – Since the Order of this Court is not of reinstatement, the
petitioners under the garb of the contempt petition cannot seek
reinstatement, when nothing was granted by this Court – Thus, the
department have not violated any order passed by this Court – U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 6Q. G
Dismissing the Contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The petitioners cannot claim any grievance of
not engaging them in pursuance of the order passed by this Court
when this Court has disposed of the Special Leave Petitions in
H
223
224 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A the light of circular dated 07.04.2015 which contemplates that
the retrenched employees will be re-engaged in case any
requirement arises and in order of seniority. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the respondents have violated any order passed by
this Court. [Para 26][234-G-H]
B 1.2 The circular dated 07.04.2015 is in terms of the mandate
of Section 6Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to
maintain a list of retrenched workmen to be engaged as and when
the necessity arises. The Order of this Court dated 07.09.2015
has been passed on the basis of concession given on behalf of
the workmen in light of the circular dated 07.04.2015. There was
C no order of this Court to re-engage the workmen who were parties
in the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, in the absence of any
specific and categorical direction of reinstatement, the petitioners
cannot claim any right for reinstatement on the basis of the orders
passed by this Court on 07.09.2015. Furthermore, the petitioners
D were not party in the group of Special Leave Petitions decided
on 07.09.2015. The Order of this Court is to take workmen on
daily wage basis as per office order dated 07.04.2015. The
submission of the petitioner that they accepted the order under
the impression that the workmen are being reinstated cannot be
accepted as the order dated 07.09.2015 has been passed on the
E basis of the circular which contemplates that the workmen shall
be reinstated as per the seniority list as and when requirement
in future arises. [Paras 18-20][232-E-H; 233-A]
1.3 The argument that 550 Group D posts are available
against which petitioners may be appointed is not tenable. The
F Group D posts are required to be filled on the basis of
qualifications prescribed for filling up of such posts in the Rules
as may be applicable to make appointments to such posts. The
petitioners, if eligible, can compete for such appointments. But
merely they were once engaged on muster roll, they cannot have
G right to seek regular appointment against Group D posts dehors
the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Rules. The regular
appointment can be made keeping in view the principles of public
appointment which is by issuance of an advertisement giving
opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and to consider
their suitability for the posts in non-discriminatory manner. The
H
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY v. RAJESH MITTAL 225
petitioners appointed on muster roll basis cannot claim regular A
appointment against the vacant Group D posts when the Award
of the Labour Court was of reinstatement and not that of regular
appointment. [Para 21][233-D-H]
1.4 There is no direction in the order passed by this Court
to reinstate the petitioners or to place them in minimum or regular B
pay scale. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the
basis of impressions, when the order of the Court does not contain
any direction for reinstatement or for grant of regular pay scale.
The contempt would be made out when there is wilful
disobedience to the orders of this Court. Since the Order of this
Court is not of reinstatement, the petitioners under the garb of C
the contempt petition cannot seek reinstatement, when no such
relief was granted by this Court. [Para 25][234-E-F]
State of Punjab & Others v. Jagjit Singh & Others
(2017) 1 SCC 148 : [2016] 7 SCR 350 – held
inapplicable. D
State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (2009) 9 SCC 514 :
[2009] 12 SCR 394; Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional
Forest Officer & Others 2018 (14) SCALE 765; RBI v.
S. Mani (2005) 5 SCC 100 : [2005] 2 SCR 797 –
referred to. E
Case Law Reference
[2009] 12 SCR 394 referred to Para 12
2018 (14) SCALE 765 referred to Para 12
F
[2016] 7 SCR 350 held inapplicable Para 22
[2005] 2 SCR 797 referred to Para 22
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Contempt Petition (C)
No. 817 of 2018 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 309 of 2016 in Special
Leave Petition (C) No. 4470 of 2014. G
From the Judgment and Order dated 11.01.2017 of this Hon’ble
Court in Contempt Petition (C) No. 309 of 2016 in Special Leave Petition
(C) No. 4470 of 2014.
H
226 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A WITH
Contempt Petition (C) No. 1290/2018 in Contempt Petition (C)
No. 860/2016 in S.L.P (C) No. 3540/2015 and Contempt Petition (C)
No. 1291/2018 in Contempt Petition (C) No. 861/2016 in S.L.P (C) No.
3542/2015
B Vikas Singh, Sr. Adv., Prashant Bhushan, Govind Jee, Dr. Vinod
Kumar Tewari, Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, Kapish Sheth, Advs. for the
appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
C HEMANT GUPTA, J. 1. The present Contempt Petitions arise
out of an order passed by this Court on 07.09.2015 which reads as under:-
“It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it has
decided to take the respondents-workmen on daily wage basis as
per the office order dated 07.04.2015 and list contained therein.
D Needless to say, the names of the respondents-workmen are
included in the list contained in office order dated 07.04.2015 which
has been filed before this Court.
Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the names
of the respondents-workmen are included in the list as per the
aforesaid office order, they have no grievance.
E
Recording such concession, the special leave petitions stand
disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”
2. Earlier Contempt Petitions filed before this Court alleging non-
compliance of the said order were disposed of on 11.01.2017 in view of
F the fact that the name of respondents-workmen has already been included
in the seniority list.
3. The background leading to the present contempt petitions is
that U.P. Jal Nigam Construction Division (Jal Nigam in short) has
engaged workmen in the category of Runner, Beldar and Lab Assistants
G prior to 1991. The services of the workmen engaged or appointed after
31.3.1989 were retrenched on 22nd June, 1991 or so in terms of Section
6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act in short). The Writ
Petition No. 5686 of 1991 challenging such order of termination was
decided on 5.11.2009, when the following order was passed:-
H
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY v. RAJESH MITTAL 227
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
“3. Petitioners were engaged as daily wager in the U.P. Jal Nigam A
sometime in the year 1989 on various dates facing retrenchment
of their services in pursuance to decision taken by the Board.
U.P. Jal Nigam took a decision and had issued a circular that all
the persons appointed after 31.8.1989 shall be retrenched after
serving a month notice and payment of salary. Accordingly, in
B
pursuance to decision taken by the Board petitioner’s services
have been terminated after payment of one month salary. Cut off
date fixed by the Jal Nigam has been impugned in the present
writ petition.
4. In a recent judgement reported in JT 2009 (9) SC 229,
A.Manjula Bhashini and others Vs. The M.D., A.P. Women C
Coop. Finance Corp. Ltd. their Lordship of Hon’ble Supreme
Court held that ordinarily fixing of cut of date can not be held
arbitrary unless it suffers from want of jurisdiction or violative of
certain statutory provisions or constitutional mandate.
5. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to D
indicate that cut off date fixed by the Jal Nigam suffers from any
illegality or violative of fundamental right available to the petitioner.
Initially an interim order was passed by this court but Hon’ble
Supreme Court while deciding Special Leave Petition against the
said interim order had set aside the same and permitted the Jal E
Nigam to proceed at its end.
6. In view of above, there appears to be no substantial illegality in
the impugned order passed by the Jal Nigam divesting the petitioner
from service. However, since the petitioners had discharged duty
for about three years, it shall be appropriate for U.P. Jal Nigam to F
give preference to the petitioners while making any fresh selection
or appointment for the post of daily wager or work charge
employee or muster roll in future vacancies.”
4. The petitioner No.1 raised an industrial dispute which was
referred to Labour Court, Mirzapur. The learned Labour Court ordered G
to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/- and Rs. 2,000/- as litigation expenses
in its Award dated 04.02.2009. The Award of the Labour Court notices
a fact that the services of the workman was engaged on 1.4.1990 and
terminated on 22.6.1991. It also noticed that the order of termination
was stayed on 20.5.1991 in Writ Petition No. 18124 of 1991 but after the
H
228 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A decision of the said writ petition, the services of the workman was
terminated in 1994.
5. Such Award was challenged by the first petitioner by filing Writ
Petition-C No. 4027 of 2010. The learned Single Bench passed an order
in terms of the order passed in Writ Petition-C Nos. 35846 of 1997 and
B 20921 of 1999. Four more writ petitions were decided along with the
said writ petition filed by the first petitioner. The operative part of order
reads as under:
“…. Earlier there was stay order and when writ petition was filed
the same was dismissed in 1994 on the alternative ground to
C approach the labour court. The petitioners continued to work upto
June, 1994. Subsequently, after dismissal of the writ petition,
petitioners were again terminated on 01.07.1994. Admittedly, they
have worked for more than 240 days in a calendar year. In view
of the fact, all the petitioners are entitled for relief hence the
present writ petition is also decided in terms of the order passed
D in writ petition no. 35846 of 1997 and 20921 of 1999. Accordingly,
the impugned orders are hereby set aside. The respondents are
directed to consider the claim of the petitioners in terms of the
decision by this Court in aforesaid writ petitions.”
6. The order in the Writ Petition No. 35846 of 1997, as mentioned
E in the above order, is of reinstatement but without back-wages. The
relevant extract from the order dated 09.05.2011 reads as under:-
“Looking to the entire facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion
that the requirement of law and justice will best be served by
directing reinstatement but without any back wages. Let the
F petitioner be reinstated forthwith and be paid salary as is being
paid to others. Impugned award is accordingly modified.”
7. The Jal Nigam filed Special Leave Petition Nos. 4470/14, 4802/
14, 16142/14, 16137/14 and 16139/14 against the common order of the
learned Single Bench dated 9.10.2013. Special Leave Petition (C) Nos.
G 3542 of 2015 and 3540 of 2015 were against an order passed by the
learned Single Bench of Allahabad High Court on 27.11.2012 and the
order in Review Petition dated 13.12.2013 in Writ Petition Nos. 16370
and 16368 of 1999. Another Special Leave Petition (C) No. 5057 of
2014 was also taken up for hearing which was directed against an order
H
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY v. RAJESH MITTAL 229
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
dated 09.12.2013 passed by the High Court in Writ Petition No. 54570 A
of 2011. All such Special Leave Petitions were decided by the common
order dated 07.09.2015 on the basis of office order dated 07.04.2015
wherein it was resolved that in future, as and when any vacancy arises
on daily wages/muster roll, the preference will be given to terminated/
retrenched employee of the department. A list of 1003 retrenched
B
workmen were attached to such communication. The relevant extract
from the office order dated 7.4.2015 reads as under: -
“1. Due to paucity of work order and excess number of muster
roll employees the Department and keeping in view the financial
loss caused to the Department; the said muster roll employees
were terminated from service. Challenging said termination, the C
muster roll employees filed cases before the High Court and the
Supreme Court.
xxx xxx xxx
4. In light of the decisions passed by the Hon’ble High Court, and D
the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is hereby resolved that in future as
and when any vacancy arises on daily wage/ muster roll;
preference will be given to the terminated/retrenched employees
of the department. List of terminated muster employees has been
provided to the office concerned to the Executive Engineer, vide
letter reference number – 424/A-4/191-0037/15 dated 09.03.2015.” E
8. The Contempt Petition No. 817 of 2018 has been preferred by
62 petitioners but only the first petitioner was the party before this Court
in a bunch of Special Leave Petitions which were decided on 07.09.2015.
The Contempt Petition Nos. 1290 and 1291 of 2018 are by the petitioners
who were the respondents in the Special Leave Petitions filed by the Jal F
Nigam. Thus, only three of the petitioners were parties before this Court
in the Special Leave Petitions.
9. In the written submissions filed by the counsel for the petitioners,
it is averred that an impression was given by the Jal Nigam that it shall
comply with the directions of reinstatement passed by the High Court. G
The relevant extract reads as under:
“Therefore, an impression was given by the Nigam before this
Hon’ble Court that the Respondent Nigam shall comply with the
directions passed by the Hon’ble High Court (reinstatement
H
230 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A without back wages) in terms of office order dated 07.04.2015
and list contained therein. The fact of having prepared list of
retrenched employees in terms of seniority was raised by the
Nigam before this Hon’ble Court for the first time in SLP (C)
5057 of 2014. It is important to mention that the authenticity of
the names contained in the office order dated 07.04.2015 and list
B
contained therein is not known to the Petitioners and the Petitioners
have brought to the notice of this Hon’ble Court.”
10. In respect of an earlier Contempt Petition No. 309 of 2016,
which was disposed of on 11.01.2017, it is again averred that the
impression was given that Jal Nigam shall do the needful to comply with
C the order dated 07.09.2015. The extract from the written submissions
reads as under:
“That again an impression was given to this Hon’ble Court that
the Respondent Nigam shall do the needful to comply with the
order dated 07.09.2015 passed by this Court in S.L.P. (C) 5057 of
D 2014. The Respondent Nigam in gross defiance of the undertaking
given before this Hon’ble Court, deliberately and wilfully disobeyed
specific directions of this Hon’ble Court to reinstate the Petitioners,
as daily worker/ muster roll employees, without back wages, which
led to filing of second contempt petition no. 817 of 2018.”
E 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners relies upon communication
dated 15.04.2017 to contend that 550 vacant Group D posts are available,
therefore, petitioners can be reinstated and regularised against the vacant
posts thus available. Therefore, it is contended that the erstwhile daily
wagers engaged on muster roll basis are required to be reinstated.
F 12. It is also submitted that this Court has passed orders from
time to time to comply with the directions issued by this Court. The Jal
Nigam has employed thirty-two workmen only as daily wage workers /
muster roll employees. The learned counsel for the petitioners has thus
sought reinstatement of the petitioners at the minimum of pay scale
G applicable to the regular employees working on the same posts. Reliance
is placed upon State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh reported in (2009) 9
SCC 514, State of Punjab & Others v.Jagjit Singh & Others reported
in (2017) 1 SCC 148 and Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest
Officer & Others reported in 2018 (14) SCALE 765.
H
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY v. RAJESH MITTAL 231
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
13. It is further contended that there was a direction for A
reinstatement of the workmen by the High Court and there was no reason
for the petitioners to give up their claim on the basis of circular dated
07.04.2015 on the basis of which Special Leave Petitions were disposed
of. Therefore, the circular dated 07.04.2015 has, in fact, prejudiced the
claim of the petitioners.
B
14. The Jal Nigam in the counter affidavit asserted that the circular
dated 07.04.2015 was issued in pursuance of directions of the High Court
in Writ Petition No. 5686 of 1991 as reproduced in para 3 of this Judgment.
It was decided that in case of necessity of engaging daily wagers in
future, preference will be given to muster roll employees as per the list
of 1003 workmen annexed in the said office order. It is also pointed out C
that in terms of interim order passed by this Court earlier in the present
contempt petition, an advertisement was issued in the newspaper to call
100 retrenched employees as per the seniority list circulated on 07.04.2015
for the purpose of their re-instatement. Such advertisement was published
as it was difficult task to contact first 40 retrenched employees in order D
of seniority after lapse of 27 years. In response to such advertisement,
32 employees have responded and have been appointed on 06.09.2018.
It is also averred that there was paucity of work and also accumulated
losses, therefore, retrenchment was affected in the year 1991. It is also
stated that there was no undertaking or direction to re-engage the
retrenched daily wagers and that the earlier Contempt Petitions having E
been dropped, therefore the present petitions do not merit any
consideration as the order of this Court has been complied with.
15. In the written submissions filed by the counsel for the Jal
Nigam, there is an assertion that there have been no vacancies for daily
wages in the Jal Nigam since the order dated 07.04.2015 was passed F
and that in the absence of any such vacancies, no occasion to employ
any of the retrenched employees arises and there is no wilful and
deliberate disobedience by the respondents.
16. It is further stated that 550 posts in Group D posts are not for
daily wagers / muster rolls and that Jal Nigam has not appointed any G
employee even in Group D post even for last five years because it is
facing financial strains. It is also asserted that consequent to
implementation of recommendation of the 6th Pay Commission not to
engage workers on “non-technical” posts through recruitment, it was
H
232 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A decided to outsource non-technical work, if required. It is asserted that
Jal Nigam has not outsourced any non-technical work since the year
2010. It is also stated that Jal Nigam was established under Uttar Pradesh
Water Supply and Sewerage Act, 1975. The execution of projects of
water supply and sewerage were earlier carried out on ‘Deposit Work
Basis’, where the Jal Nigam would purchase material and engage daily
B
wage labourers to complete the project, under the supervision of the
permanent technical staff. But, due to increasing financial stress, the
work model has been changed to seek execution of projects through
Contractors. In the new work model, the Project would be awarded to
the contractor whose bid is the lowest. The process has eliminated the
C need for the Jal Nigam to employ daily wage labourers for execution of
projects.
17. We have heard Learned Counsel for the parties and have also
gone through the written submissions submitted. The re-engagement of
retrenched workmen is governed by Section 6Q of the Act which
D contemplates that where the workmen are retrenched, and the employer
proposes to employ other persons, he shall, in such manner as may be
prescribed give an opportunity to the retrenched workmen to offer
themselves for re-employment, and the retrenched workmen who offer
themselves for re-employment shall have preference over other persons.
E 18. We find that the circular dated 07.04.2015 is in terms of the
mandate of Section 6Q of the Act so as to maintain a list of retrenched
workmen to be engaged as and when the necessity arises.
19. The order dated 07.09.2015 has been passed on the basis of
concession given on behalf of the workmen in light of the circular dated
F 07.04.2015. There was no order of this Court to re-engage the workmen
who were parties in the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, in the absence
of any specific and categorical direction of reinstatement, the petitioners
cannot claim any right for reinstatement on the basis of the orders passed
by this Court on 07.09.2015. Still further, 61 petitioners were not party in
the group of Special Leave Petitions which were decided on 07.09.2015.
G
20. The Order of this Court dated 07.09.2015 is to take workmen
on daily wage basis as per office order dated 07.04.2015. The argument
that they accepted the order under the impression that the workmen
are being reinstated cannot be accepted as the order dated 07.09.2015
has been passed on the basis of the circular dated 07.04.2015 which
H
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY v. RAJESH MITTAL 233
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
contemplates that the workmen shall be reinstated as per the seniority A
list as and when requirement in future arises. The Order of the Court
cannot be interpreted on the basis of the impressions which may be
drawn by the petitioners, in view of the specific order passed by this
Court on 07.09.2015.
21. The argument that 550 Group D posts are available against B
which petitioners may be appointed is not tenable. The Group D posts
are required to be filled on the basis of qualifications prescribed for
filling up of such posts in the Rules as may be applicable to make
appointments to such posts. The petitioners, if eligible, can compete for
such appointments. But merely they were once engaged on muster roll,
they cannot have right to seek regular appointment against Group D C
posts dehors the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Rules. The regular
appointment can be made keeping in view the principles of public
appointment which is by issuance of an advertisement giving opportunity
to all eligible candidates to apply and to consider their suitability for the
posts in non-discriminatory manner. The petitioners appointed on muster D
roll basis cannot claim regular appointment against the vacant Group D
posts when the Award of the Labour Court was of reinstatement and
not that of regular appointment.
22. The judgment referred to by the learned counsel for the
petitioners in Jagjit Singh & Others (supra) is not applicable in respect E
of a daily wager engaged on muster roll. The question examined therein
was whether temporarily engaged employees are entitled to minimum
of the regular pay scale, along with dearness allowance etc. on account
of their performing the same duties which are discharged by those engaged
on regular basis, against sanctioned post. This is not the case of re-
instatement of a retrenched workmen arising out of an Industrial Dispute. F
In RBI v. S. Mani, (2005) 5 SCC 100, it was held that in law, 240 days
of continuous service by itself does not give right to claim of permanence.
Section 25F provides for grant of compensation if a workman is sought
to be retrenched in violation of the conditions referred to therein. A
direction for reinstatement for non-compliance with the provisions of G
Section 25F of the Industrial Disputes Act would restore to the workman
the same status which he held when terminated. In the present case, the
order of the Writ Court is of reinstatement. The reinstatement can be on
the same post and on the same terms from which services were
retrenched subject to availability of such posts.
H
234 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 1 S.C.R.
A 23. In the case of Surjit Singh(supra), the question examined
was in respect of applicability of the doctrine of “equal pay for equal
work”. The respondents therein were appointed as daily wagers without
following any recruitment process. The question of reinstatement in
pursuance of Award of Labour Court was not the issue raised or decided.
In an Industrial Dispute, the nature of engagement, whether on muster
B
rolls, daily wages or ad-hoc basis is not the relevant consideration for an
Award of reinstatement. The only question required to be examined is
as to whether the workman has worked for 240 days in a preceding
calendar year and as to whether the workman has been paid retrenchment
compensation. The question of regularization or equal pay for equal work
C was not the dispute raised or examined by the Labour Court.
24. Similarly, in Sabha Shanker Dube (supra), the Appellants
were daily rated workers employed in Group ‘D’ posts in the Forest
Department in the State of Uttar Pradesh. The claim in the Writ Petitions
was of regularization of their services and the payment of the minimum
D of the pay scales available to their counterparts working on regular posts
and treating them as being in continued service while condoning the
breaks in their service. For the reasons recorded above, even the issue
raised in the said judgment is not helpful to the arguments raised by Mr.
Bhushan, learned counsel for the petitioners.
E 25. Still further there is no direction in the order passed by this
Court to reinstate the petitioners or to place them in minimum or regular
pay scale. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of
impressions, when the order of the Court does not contain any direction
for reinstatement or for grant of regular pay scale. The contempt would
be made out when there is wilful disobedience to the orders of this Court.
F Since the Order of this Court is not of reinstatement, the petitioners
under the garb of the contempt petition cannot seek reinstatement, when
nothing was granted by this Court.
26. Still further, 61 petitioners cannot claim any grievance of not
engaging them in pursuance of the order passed by this Court when this
G Court has disposed of the Special Leave Petitions in the light of circular
dated 07.04.2015 which contemplates that the retrenched employees
will be re-engaged in case any requirement arises and in order of seniority.
Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated any order
passed by this Court.
H
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY v. RAJESH MITTAL 235
[HEMANT GUPTA, J.]
27. Thus, we do not find any merit in the present contempt petitions, A
accordingly, they are dismissed. The Rule is discharged. However, the
services of the workmen who have already been engaged shall not be
affected by this order.
The pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
B
Nidhi Jain Contempt Petitions dismissed.
C
D
E
F
G
H
Search Indian case law
Ask in plain English, not just keywords. 25,000 AI words free, no card.
Try "contempt of court"Sign in to search