IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 13.10.2010 COCP No.1253 of 2009 Naresh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Anurag Aggarwal and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present : Mr. S.K.Sud, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Mr. Aman Chaudhary, Addl. AG, Haryana. HEMANT GUPTA, J. (Oral) The petitioners have invoked the contempt jurisdiction of this Court alleging willful and intentional disobedience to the orders passed by this Court on 30.05.2009 on the statement made by learned counsel appearing for the respondents. The petitioners are the Assistant Linemen, whose services were retrenched. The petitioners challenged their retrenchment in a writ petition before this Court, wherein the following order was passed on the statement of learned counsel representing the respondents on 30.05.2008: “Shri Narender Hooda, Advocate, counsel for the respondents, on written instructions from the respondents, copy of which has been placed on record, states that the ALMs/SAs, who have been engaged on contract / our source basis, shall be given preference by the contractors for engaging them on D.C. rates for six months. He further states that the order persons COCP No.1253 of 2009 shall only be considered when earlier engaged ALMs/SAs having experience are not available. He further states that these instructions will be strictly adhered by the respondents. In case, the petitioners are not being paid D.C. rates for the contract labour done by them, it will be open for them to make representation to the respondents and if any such representation is filed, the same will be considered in accordance with law. In view of the aforesaid statement, counsel for the petitioners states that he does not want to press this petition. Dismissed as not pressed.” The petitioners have preferred the present contempt petition alleging that the petitioners are being paid wages of ` 4190/- or ` 4300/- as against ` 6500/- fixed by the Deputy Commissioner. Therefore, the payment of wages less than the D.C. rates is in violation of the statement made before this Court. In pursuance of the direction of this Court on 21.04.2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Bhiwani has filed an affidavit dated 06.09.2010. It is pointed out that the minimum rates of pay/wages were fixed for contingent paid employees of the various Departments in Bhiwani vide office order dated 22.05.2008. In the said order, at Sr.No.33 is the post of Electrician having two years ITI diploma for whole time employment. The said wages is for Junior Engineer (E). But on the basis of the report of the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer, the minimum wages for Assistant Lineman with educational qualification of matric with two years ITI diploma was fixed at ` 4190/- and with experience of three to five years at ` 4300/-. Similar are the wages fixed for the post of Shift Attendant. The said order was passed on 15.01.2009. It has been further pointed out that the Labour-cum-Conciliation Officer has informed the Deputy Commissioner that such wages of ` 4190/- were in terms of the letter dated 2 COCP No.1253 of 2009 24.10.2008 issued by the Haryana Government, Labour Department under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that since in the order passed by the Deputy Commissioner on 25.05.2008, the Electrician with two years ITI diploma is to be paid ` 6500/-, therefore, it is the said wages, which alone are payable to the Assistant Lineman and the Shift Attendant, as the description at Sr.No.33 satisfies each of the petitioner as well. The questions, whether the Assistant Lineman or the Shift Attendant fall under Sr.No.33; and that the Assistant Lineman or the Shift Attendant are to be paid ` 4190/-, are the questions, which cannot be examined in a contempt petition. Prima facie, it appears that such wages have been fixed on the basis of minimum wages fixed under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948 by the State Government. The payment of wages have to be established in an appropriate case. It cannot be said that payment of ` 4190/- to the Assistant Lineman and Shift Attendant without any experience is in violation of the statement made before this Court on 30.05.2008. Consequently, the present contempt petition is dismissed with liberty to the petitioners to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to the petitioners in accordance with law. 13.10.2010 (HEMANT GUPTA) Vimal JUDGE 3