1 Amk IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 206 OF 2009 Associated Cement Staff Union .. Petitioner Vs. ACC Limited & Ors. .. Respondents Mr. P. M. Patel for the Petitioner. Mr. J. P. Cama Senior Counsel a/w. Mr. Bharat Goyal & Mr. Atman Mehta i/b M/s. Haresh Mehta & Com for Respondent Nos. 1 to 4. CORAM : MRS. R. S. DALVI, J. DATE : 25th January, 2010. P.C. 1. The order which is shown to be breached is the award of the Industrial Tribunal, Maharashtra at Mumbai alleging acts of contempt on the part of respondent Nos.1 & 2. The Petitioner’s Advocate does not press the petition against respondent Nos.3 & 4. The petitioner has alleged four acts of contempt as follows. 1. Failure to give 25% rise in basic salary as per demand No.1. 2. Failure to give the new pay scale as per demand No.2. 3. Failure to give service weightage increments as per demand No.3. 2 4. Insistence upon giving a declaration for claiming reimbursement of medical expenses and failure to reimburse the medical expenses of parents of the petitioner as per demand No.24. 2. The Award under which the various demands are finally considered is dated 4th October, 2007. Paragraph 77 of the Award which states that the parties were pressing only demand No. 5 which is in respect of the Dearness Allowance after the remand of the matter to the Tribunal. It further recites that the employees conceded to the relief granted by the earlier Tribunal Mr. P. B. Sawant under his Award called “the P. B. Sawant Award”. It is, therefore, clarified that the dispute between the parties was not resolved only in respect of dearness allowance and that demand was only contested. 3. Mr. Cama, Senior Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 states that demand No.5 which was agitated upon has been granted as per the then existent dearness allowance scheme with addition of Rs.400/- thereto. Dearness allowance is paid accordingly. There is not contempt alleged for that payment. 3 4. Hence for the other demands the P. B. Sawant Award was required to be complied. It is, therefore, required to be seen whether the alleged demands were actually complied as per the P. B. Sawant Award. Re. : Demand No.1 5. Demand No.1 with regard to the increase of basic wage scale of all the employees has been partly allowed increasing basic wage scale by 7 ½ % for all the employees who are working as on 21st March, 1997. It is alleged that the increase in the basic wage is granted as per the demand made. Demand of increase of 25% rise in the basic wage scale was made. The Award dated 4th October, 2007 did not actually deal with that aspect since that aspect was resolved between the parties. The Award, however, sets out with regard to demand No.1 that the management shall increase the basic wage scale for the employees who are in employment as on 30th June, 1997. The Award, therefore, does not show that the increase in demand is granted. In view of the aforesaid statement in the Award clarifying that the parties have resolved all disputes except dearness allowance, no further increase in basic wage other than what was granted in the P. B. Sawant Award can be claimed 4 and refusal to pay any further basic pay scale cannot be construed as breach of the award dated 4th October, 2007. In fact, since only the date from which the increase was to be effected is mentioned that date may be taken to be altered. Re. : Demand No.2 6. Though it is alleged that the new pay scale as per the demand is not implemented, no particulars of what is the new scale which is granted are set out. The respondents contend that the new pay scale as per demand No.2 granted in the P. B. Sawant Award and left unaltered and restated in the Award dated 4th October, 2007 is paid. No breach is shown. Hence, no contempt of the Award dated 4th October, 2007 is made out. Re. : Demand No.3 7. The contention with regard to the service weightage increments that the petitioners are entitled to is stated to be four increments on completion of 25 years of service which is not granted as per the Award dated 4th October, 2007. The Award, as mentioned above, does not deal with this aspect since the parties had resolved that aspect and it was not agitated at the time the 5 Award dated 4th October, 2007 was passed. No particulars showing the increments granted to any employee who completed 25 years of service after the Award dated 4th October, 2007 is shown. The Award published in the official gazette of the State of Maharashtra dated 21.01.2004 shows three increments to be granted to all the employees completing 25 years of service. Hence, there is the patent typographical error in the Award dated 4th October, 2007 which in fact needs to be corrected by the learned Tribunal. No breach of the Award on demand No.3 is seen. Re. : Demand No.24 8. The declaration with regard to the medical allowance under demand No.24 was rejected under the P. B. Sawant Award. The order dated 4th October, 2007 shows that the management is directed not to obtain any declaration from the employees for claiming reimbursement of medical expenses. The Advocate for the petitioner states that the employees shall submit medical bills of the chemists. Mr. Cama Advocate on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 2 makes a statement, upon taking instructions of the attorney, that the management shall not insist upon any further declaration to be made by the employees. The statement is accepted. No 6 particulars of any medical allowance of any parent of any employee being rejected is furnished. Mr. Cama states that parents of employees are reimbursed the medical expenses. No breach of Demand No.24 is shown. 9. Absolutely no act of contempt or breach of the order dated 4th October, 2007 is shown. Contempt petition is dismissed. (R. S. DALVI, J.)