IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND AT NAINITAL Contempt Petition No. 144 of 2008 Satya Narayan …Petitioner Versus Ram Singh & another …Respondents Sri Gopal Narain, Advocate for the petitioner Sri S.S. Chauhan, S.C. (Central Govt.) for respondents Dated: 22.06.2009 Hon’ble B.C. Kandpal, J. By way of this contempt petition the petitioner has prayed for summoning the contemnors-opposite parties and punishing them for committing willful disobedience of the order dated 26.12.2007 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 2406/2007 (M/S), Satya Narayan Vs. Regional Labour Commissioner & others. The relevant portion of the order dated 26.12.2007 passed by the Single Judge reads as follows: “In view of the above fact that the Special Leave Petitions preferred by the respondent department as well as the Review Petitions filed before the Apex Court in each case have met same fate of dismissal, the Regional Labour Commissioner-respondent no. 1 is directed to decide and conclude the execution proceedings in each case expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of production of this order, if there is no legal impediment.” The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents, paragraph nos. 10 and 11 of which 2 read as follows: “10. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 8 of the contempt petition it is submitted that once the Hon’ble Supreme Court has dismissed the SLP, and also dismissed the Review Petition filed by the employer (Military Farm, Ministry of Defence), it is obligatory on the part of the employer to implement the award, by reinstating the workman, and by paying him 50% back wages. The answering respondent in this contempt petition has advised the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour, Dehradun to submit a prosecution proposal against the employer (Military Farm, Ministry of Defence), for breach of Section 29 of the I.D. Act, 1947. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun has submitted a prosecution proposal against the employer (Official of the Military Farm) to the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Govt. of India, New Delhi on 4.7.2006 and on 22.7.2006 also forwarded the Gazette Notification copies in which the award was published for taking action under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. the Chief Labour Commissioner (Central), Govt. of India, New Delhi has forwarded the prosecution proposal to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India on 22.8.2006. The sanction for proposal of the Officials of the Military Farm, Ministry of Defence will be accorded by the Ministry of Defence, Govt. of India under Section 197 Cr.P.C. Further, neither the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) nor the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dehradun have any power to prosecute the officials of the Military Farm directly, without a specific sanction from the Govt. of India, Ministry of Labour under Section 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 11. That in reply to the contents of paragraph no. 9 of the contempt petition it is submitted that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) Dehradun are the Conciliation Officer, under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. When the award of the CGIT was not implemented the answering respondent has already issued show cause notice and obtained reply from the employer (Military Farm, Ministry of Defence). Since the award was not implemented, the only action option left with the 3 Regional Labour Commissioner is top apply for sanction of prosecution of the employer (officials of the Military Farm, Ministry of Defence) to the Ministry of Labour, Govt. of India under Section 34 of the Industrial Disputes Act. It is hereby denied that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) is the “executing authority” of the awards passed by the CGIT. As a conciliation Officer, the answering respondent can only verify whether the award was implemented or not by the employer. It is humbly submitted before the Hon’ble High Court that there is no provision for “execution of the award” by Labour Commissioner under Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. There is only one provision under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which provides for prosecution of the employer for breach of award with an imprisonment up to six months or fine or with both. For filing this prosecution, the appropriate Govt. i.e. the Govt. of India has to accord sanction under Section 34(1) of the Act. Further since the employer in this case is Military Farm under Govt. of India, Ministry of Defence, the Officials are protected under Section 197 of Cr.P.C. The Ministry of Defence has to accord its sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. and the Ministry of Labour has to accord sanction under Section 34(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun who is also conciliation Officer under I.D. Act, 1947 already submitted proposals to his higher authorities for according necessary sanction to prosecute the officials of the Military Farm Ministry of Defence in the month of July, 2007. It is hereby submitted before the Hon’ble Court that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central), Dehradun and the Assistant Labour Commissioner (Central) Dehradun have done all the action that they have to do in this case of non-implementation of the award passed by the CGIT. There is no action pending with the answering respondent. The workmen, petitioners of this contempt petition are not fully award of the legal position, and they are of a wrong opinion that the Regional Labour Commissioner (Central) is the “executing authority” in respect of the awards passed by the CGIT. The answering respondent hereby submit that the petitioners in this contempt petition are also trying to abuse the process of the Court and trying to mislead the Hon’ble High Court and wrongly described the answering 4 respondent no. 1 as contemnor.” Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner has in fact moved the application under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the appropriate Govt./respondent no. 1, which has been annexed as Annexure-SA-1 to the supplementary affidavit filed by the petitioner on 7th May, 2009. Learned counsel for the respondents has made the rival contention that in fact no application under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act has been filed by the petitioner as yet before the appropriate Govt./respondent no. 1. The submission raised by learned counsel for the petitioner appears to be devoid of any force because the application firstly does not disclose that it has been moved under Section 33C(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, secondly had there been any application moved by the petitioner before the appropriate Govt./respondent no. 1, then the orders should have been passed by respondent no. 1 but no order has been brought before this Court passed by any appropriate authority/respondent no. 1 in this regard as yet. For the reasons stated above, I do not find any justification to continue the contempt proceedings against the respondents. Accordingly, contempt petition is dismissed. Notice issued against respondent no. 1 is hereby discharged. (B.C. Kandpal, J.) 5 SP