HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, AT NAINITAL Civil Contempt Petition No.119 of 2008 Dinesh Chandra Pokhriyal & another … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.92 of 2008 Rakesh Singh … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.93 of 2008 Rishipal Singh … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.94 of 2008 Dhom Singh & others … Petitioners Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.95 of 2008 Harpal Singh & others … Petitioners Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.96 of 2008 Jabar Singh & others … Petitioners Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.97 of 2008 Gambhir Singh … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.98 of 2008 Harpal … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.99 of 2008 Rishal Singh & others … Petitioners Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.100 of 2008 Kunwar Pal Singh … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.120 of 2008 Pushpendra Singh … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.190 of 2008 Virendra Singh … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.191 of 2008 Yogendra Pal Singh & others … Petitioners Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.192 of 2008 Viresh Kumar … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.193 of 2008 Satya Veer Singh & others … Petitioners Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.194 of 2008 Mahindra Singh & others … Petitioners Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.195 of 2008 Khoob Singh & others … Petitioners Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.199 of 2009 Jaipal Singh … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.200 of 2009 Raghunath Singh & others … Petitioners Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents AND Civil Contempt Petition No.201 of 2009 Chandra Prakash … Petitioner Versus K. L. Arya & others … Respondents Dated:- 20th April, 2010 Hon’ble Tarun Agarwala, J. Heard Mr. Jagdish Singh Bisht and Mr. Jitendra Chaudhary, Advocates for the applicants, Mr. Rajendra Dobhal, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. V. Kaparvan and Mr. Sudhir Singh, Advocates for the respondents. Objection against the affidavit of compliance has been filed by the applicants, which is taken on record. The applicants are aggrieved by the non-compliance of the order of the writ court as affirmed by the Supreme Court and have consequently filed the present contempt application under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It transpires that the applicants were working in the Forest Corporation and their services were retrenched in the year 1995. The applicants raised an industrial dispute with regard to the validity and legality of their order of termination. The labour court gave an award holding that the dispensation of service of the applicants was valid and that the employers were justified in terminating their services. The labour court also found that the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was not applicable viz-a-viz Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The applicants, being aggrieved by the said order, filed various writ petitions before this Court, which were decided by various judgments of this Court. This Court held that the provisions of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act was applicable and that the applicants were workmen as defined under section 2(z) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The writ court accordingly allowed the writ petitions and quashed the award of the labour court and directed the reinstatement of the applicants with back wages. The Forest Corporation, being aggrieved by the judgment of the High Court, filed a Special Leave Petition before the Supreme Court, which was dismissed and the judgment of the writ court was affirmed. The Supreme Court, however, added one more aspect to the order of the writ court namely, that the applicants were not only entitled for reinstatement with back wages, but were also entitled for continuity of service. This judgment became final and became binding on the opposite party. Since the opposite party did not comply with the order of the writ court as modified by the Supreme Court, the applicants filed the present contempt application. During the pendency of the contempt application, an affidavit of compliance has been filed by the opposite party indicating therein that the applicants have been reinstated and back wages have already been paid to them. The applicants, however, contend that the full compliance of the order of the writ court as modified by the Supreme Court has not been made and that the arrears of wages has not been calculated in accordance with the direction of the Supreme Court, namely, the continuity of service. The learned counsel for the applicants submitted that if continuity of service was granted to the applicants, the applicants would be entitled for different pay scales, which was given to other similarly situated workers at a given point of time and, consequently, the arrears of wages is required to be calculated in accordance with the continuity of service of the applicants. In this regard, the applicants have also filed a chart indicating the approximate amount of arrears, which is required to be paid and, consequently, submitted that the wages paid to the applicants was not sufficient and therefore full compliance of the order of the writ court has not been made. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the opposite party submitted that substantial compliance of the order of the writ court has been made and if there is any discrepancy in the calculation, the same can be pointed out by the applicants before the opposite party and thereafter the amount would be recalculated, if necessary and if required in law. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties at some length, this Court is of the opinion that the order of the writ court as modified by the Supreme Court has now been complied with substantially by the opposite party. The contention as to whether the full arrears has been paid by the opposite party or not cannot be adjudicated in the contempt proceedings. This Court is of the opinion that there are factual controversies involved as to what kind of wages or which pay scales was payable at different point of time i.e. from the date of alleged termination till the date of alleged reinstatement. It is clear that the Supreme Court directed the continuity of service of the applicants and the continuity of service has to be awarded to the applicants. In the light of the aforesaid, this Court is of the opinion that if complete back wages has not been paid as per the order of the writ court as modified by the Supreme Court and continuity of service has not been considered while calculating the arrears of wages, it would be open to the applicants to file an appropriate application either before the opposite parties for recalculation of their wages or move an appropriate application for implementation of the order of the writ court as modified by the Supreme Court under the provisions of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act / Industrial Disputes Act. In view of the aforesaid, the notices are discharged and the contempt applications are dismissed. (Tarun Agarwala, J.) Dated 20.04.2010 LSR