HJGHCQUET^.FjyDJCATU.REJ?HtiAHiSGARHLBiLASPUR DMSIQNBENCH CORAM : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ & HON'BLE SHRI D.R. DESHIVIUKH, J. M,C,C,JMo.481_ol2006 APPyCANT PITJTJONER General Manager Bharat AIuminium Company, Limited, Captive Power Plant, Jamni Pali, Korba (C.G.) VERSUS |»»«a NQN-APPUCANTS RESPQNDENTS Authority under the Minimum Wages Act, 1948, Assistant Labour Commissjoner, Premises of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) Government of Chhattisgarh Through Inspector, Minimum Wages Act, 1948, O/o Assistant Labour Commjssioner, Premises of the Assjstant Labour Commissioner, Korba, DJstrict Korba (C.G.) The Generai Secretary BCPP Non-execution Employees Union, JNTUC, Jamnipali, Dist. Korba(C.G.) General Manager, NTPC, Super Thormai Power Plant, Korba(C.G.) ^ M,C,C,No.482 oflQQS APPyCANT PETITIONER Bharat Aluminium Company Limited, Balco Nagar, Korba Through Jts Company Secretary and Legal Head VERSUS NON-APPLICANTS RESPPNDENTS Authority under the MJnimum Wages Act, 1948, Assistant Labour Commissjoner, Premises of the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Korba, District Korba (C.G.) Government of Chhattisgarh Through Inspector, Minimum -^- ^ APPyCANTS PETmONERS v'x RESPONDENTS ^ APPUCANTS PETiTSPNERS RESPONDENTS Wages Act, 1948, O/o Assistant Labour Commissioner, Premises of the Assistant Labour Commjssioner, Korba, DistrictKorba (C.G.) 3. The GeneraJ Secretary BCPP Non-execution Employees Union, INTUC, Jamnipali, Dist. Korba (C.G.) M.C.C, No,528 of2QQ8 1. Union of India through the Ministry, ite General Manager, Ministry of Railways, South Eastern Central Railways, Garden Reach, KOLKATA. 2. Djvisionaj Railway Manager South Eastern Central RaiSways, Rajpur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) 3. The Addjtional Divisional Railway Manager (Appellate Authority), South Eastern Central Raitways, Rajpur, Divisjon Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Senior Divisionai Electricjty Engineer fTRS), South Eastern Central Raiiway, Raipur Divisjon, Bhilaj (C.G.) VERSUS 1. Rajiv Nagana, Section Engineer fTRS) (since removed) s/o Shri D.P. Nagaria, r/o Qr. No. 508/B, Zone-1, Road No. 33, Post BMY Charoda, Durg (C.G.) 2. The Centra! Administrative Tribunal, Jabalpur Bench. M.C.C,NQ,S29 of2QQ6 1. Union of India through the Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Govt. of India, New Delhi. 2. Divisjonal Railway Manager South Eastern Central Railways, Bilaspur, Dist. Bilaspur (C.G.) yiRSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh through the Secretary, Locai Self Govt. Department, Govt. of Chhattisgarh D.K.S. Bhawan, Mantraiaya, Raipur (CG) 2. Munidpa! Corporation, i 3. Bilaspur through its Commissjoner, Bilaspur, Tehsil 81 District Bilaspur (C.G.) Collector, Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) Present: Shri Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioners. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 04 October 2006) The following oral order of the Court was passed by S.R. NAYAK, CJ. We would rather begin with the caution administered by the Apex Court elsewhere that in appreciating the kind of averments/ pleadings setout in an affidavit like the one fited in support of the above MCCs, the Court shall not keep its commonsense in coid-storage and jts experience at bay. (2) The backdrop of the Members of the Chhattisgarh High Court Bar Association absenting from the Court proceediTigs on 23 August 2006 as a mark of protest against the action of the State Government in appointing outsiders as Law Officers of the State, jn brief, is as follows: (3) St appears that on or before 22nd August 2006 the Bar Association had resolv^d that its members should abstain from the Court proceedings on 23rd August 2006. Having passed such resolution, on 22nd August 2006 at 1.30 p.m., Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, President of the Chhattisgarh High Court Bar Association accompanied by Shri Shaitendra Dubey and Shri Ravish Verma and certaSn other senior members of the Associ'ation met the Chief Justice and ^i /^) -/(- presented a ietter dated 22 August 2006. The sald Setter reads as follows: "To, Hon'ble The Chief Justice and his Companion Judges High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur. Sub; Abstaining from JudJcia? works on 23.08.06. Ref: Resolution of the High Court Bar Association. Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur. Respected Sir, Being aggrieved by the appointment of out side persons in pubiic office (AG-office) in the State of Chhattisgarh, resulting in deniaj of opportunity to the locai Advocates and insult. The Genera! body has resolved that on 23.08.06 to register the protest against the decision of the State Government, the Advocates wou!d not participate In court proceeding in the High Court. Therefore, the Jawyers wiJI abstain from judicial work on 23.08.06 as mark of protest and co-operation from the bench would be highly solicited. This js for your kind jnformation and necessary action. Ravish Verma Secretary Vice Chairman Bar Council P.K. C. Tiwari President" \ (4) The President and other members who had accompanied him toid the Chief Justice that an outsider has been appointed as AdditionaJ Advocate Genera! to conduct the cases of She State Govemment before the Supreme Court without considering any of the !ocal advocates for that post and, therefore, the Bar Association had resoived that jts members should abstain from the Court proceedings on 23rd August 20C®as a mark of protest. The President and other office bearers sought "co-operation" from the Chief Justice and the Judges of the High Court in support of their action. At 4.30 p.m., the same day all the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court met in the chamber of the Chief Justice and discussed about the resolution already passed by the Bar Association without prior consultation with or approvai of the Chlof Ju^i.^w tw abstasn from tho judiciai work on 23 August 2006 in the presence of Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, President of the Chhattisgarh High Court Bar Association, Shri Prashant Mishra, Chairman, State Bar Council, other office bearers and certain senior members of the Bar Association. After necessary reflection and discussion, it was unanimously felt by the Judges as welt as the Pre^ident of the Bar Association, the Chairman of the Chhattisgarh State Bar Council and other offic©bearers and members who were present that the proposed boycott of the Court is totaJIy unconstitutional and against the binding Judgment of the Supreme Court in Ex. Capt. Harish Uppal Vs. Union of India and another1. It was also feit that the ground mentioned for the proposed abstention from the Court work was very fljmsy and the one which does not affect in any manner the dignity or honour or solemnity or credibility of the Bar. Jn the premise of the above shared common opinion it was decided that it would be totally wrong, unethica! and unconstitutional for the members of the Bar Association to absent 1. (2003) 2 SCC 45 $9 -^- from the judiciat work on 23rd August 2006 and th©Bar Associatlon should withdraw its move forthwith. (5) Although the above was the shared common opinion of aj? the concerned, Shri P.K.C. Tiwari, President of the Chhattisgarh High Court Bar Association and other office bearers of the Association told the ChEef JustJce and other Judges that they would require some time on 23rd August 2006 to pass a resolution for withdrawing ite eariier resolution to abstain from th©judicial work on 23rd August 2006 and they assured the Chief Justice and other Judges that the members of the Association would attend the Court around 11.00 a.m. and that even before 11.00 a.m., they would aiso see that some advocates would be present in each Court to see that no case goes for default. But. they did not stand by their assurances and promises. When the Court assumed the work at 10.30 a.m. on 23r August 2006, none of the members of the Bar Association were present. In the course of the proceedings for the day, later, onSy Shri Utkarsh Verma, Dy. Government Advocate, Shri V.G. Tamaskar and Shri M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocates appeared jn those cases where they have put in appearance. (S) It Is quite cJear from the above letter of the President of the Bar Association that even before bringing to the notice of the Chief Justice the proposal to boycott the Court on 23rd August 2006, th©Bar Association had resolvad to boycott th©Court on 23rd August 2006 In uttsr violation of the !aw dectared by the Apex Court of the country jn Harish. UppaS. We place on record our total and the strongest disapproval ofthe &x fade unethica! and unprofessionat conduct of the ^) -^- w^g', members of the Bar Association who were parties to the resolution and who absented from the Court works. (7) Erring is human; IntrospectJon/repentance is a virtue. In these cases, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioners has filed affidavits in support of the M.C.Cs. regretting for his absence on 23rd August 2006 and totaljy dissociating himself with the wrong decision taken by the Bar Association. In the course of his submission, {earned counsej afso tendered his unconditional apologies to the Court for being a party to the wrong decision of the Bar Association. (8) No doubt, in Harish UppaS, the Supreme Court in more than one p!aces has observed that mere disapproval of such action would not serve the purpose. In addition to th© disapproval of the objectionabSe conduct, concrete actions are aiso suggested. Of course, this is one part of the problem. The other part of the same probiem is whether innocent litigants, particuiarly, those litigants in cjvij matters having entrusted their cases to Advocates, are a!Jowed to be prejudiced severeEy for the lapse, nay, misconduct of thejr counsei. if we do not restore these cases, it is trite, the petitioners would be subjected to great hardship and inconvenience and in some cases, irreparabte injuries resutting in failure of justice. Striking a balance between what the Apex Court said in Harish Uppat and the oth^r line of decisions in which it is held that on account of the lapses on the part of the Advocates the parties should not be allowed to suffer, we are jnclined to restore these writ petitions with heavy heart and mind, and trusting that the members of this Bar would not indulge in such activjties in future, particularjy, on flimsy grounds which prompted them -8 Subbu to absent from the Court work on 23rd August 2006. It is not that the High Court adminjstration or the Bench had done some acts to question the integrity and independence of the Bar. The reason cited by the Bar to absent from the Court works had nothing to do wlth the High Court administration or the Bench or the conduct of the IJtigants whom they represent. (9) In the result and for the foregoing reasons, we altow the IVI.C.C. Nos. 481 of 2006, 482 of 2006, 528 of 2006 and 529 of 2006 with cost quantified at Rs.300/- in each of these cases payable to the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee, within a period of fifteen days from today. The costs should be paid by the concerned Searned counsel without seeking reimbursement of the same from the parties. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge N«N|;