1 IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF BOMBAY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION CONTEMTP PETITION NO.6 OF 2008 IN WRIT PETITION NO.398 OF 2003 Grindleys Bank Employees’ Union. ..Petitioner V/s. Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Ltd. & Anr. ..Respondents. Mr.Neel Helekar with Mr. Nitin Holkunde i/b. M/s. Haresh Mehta & Co. for petitioner. Mr.A.D.Shetty with Ms.R.K.Joshi for Respondent No.2. CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J A.M.KHANWILKAR,J DATE DATE DATE : OCTOBER 14, 2008. : OCTOBER 14, 2008. : OCTOBER 14, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. : : : 1. Heard Counsel for the parties. 2. Present Petition is to initiate contempt action against the Respondent for non-compliance of direction given by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal No.II in its award dated 29th October, 2002. It is not in dispute that the said award attained finality on the dismissal of the Writ Petition and thereafter Appeal before the Division Bench of this Court. The Supreme Court rejected the SLP on 23rd February, 2004. Present Petition however, is filed on 8th January, 2008, which is obviously barred by limitation. 2 3. To get over this position, Counsel for the petitioner contends that no specific time frame has been provided in the award passed by the Industrial Court and that the cause is recurring cause of action. The argument is ill-advised inasmuch as the award issued clear direction to the Respondent to place the concerned workmen in their original posts. Even if no specific time is given in the said Award, it was to be done forthwith by the Respondent. 4. Be that as it may, the Respondent made statement before the Division Bench of this Court on 21st April, 2003 that they will give effect to the award within a period of six months from that date. Assuming that the award does not mention specific date before which the Respondent was expected to take remedial measures, the date is notified in the order of the Division Bench of this Court dated 21st April, 2003 which is within six months from the date of the order. The said period of six months would obviously expire in October, 2003 whereas the present Petition is filed in January, 2008. Taking any view of the matter, I have no hesitation in holding that the present Petition is barred by limitation. 5. Counsel for the Respondent has invited my 3 attention to the Judgment of the Division Bench of our High Court in W.P.1110 of 2007. That Writ Petition was filed by Petitioner Union in respect of proceeding resorted to on behalf of the workmen for recovery of wages in the light of award passed by the Industrial Court dated 29th October, 2002. All aspects, which were raised before the Division Bench of this Court have been addressed and in the penultimate paragraph, the Division Bench has plainly recorded that It is nobody’s case that the award of the industrial court was not given full effect to as is obvious from the fact that the union took no steps, presumably on the ground that there was no grievance left at that time itself. This opinion recorded by the Division Bench would bind the Petitioner-Union and the concerned workmen, as that decision is allowed to be come final. In any case, as observed earlier this Petition cannot proceed as barred by limitation. Hence dismissed. (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J) (A.M.KHANWILKAR,J)