-1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN, JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR O R D E R D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No.525 of 2006 IN D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.831 of 2002 IN S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.5623 of 1999 Shankar Lal Sharma son of late Shri Jwala Ramji Sharma VERSUS Sh. Ram Singh Meena, P.O.Labour Court, Jaipur 1st, Jaipur and Ors. Date of Order :::: March 4th , 2010 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Dalip Singh Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Chand Sharma Shri Shankar Lal Sharma, appellant, present in-person Shri A.K. Sharma and Shri Vishnukant Sharma, Counsel for the respondents *** By the Court : This contempt petition, under Section 15(2) & 12 of the Court of Contempt Act, 1971 has been filed by the petitioner alleging therein the non-compliance of the judgment of this Court dated 18.04.2006 passed by the learned Division Bench in D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) bearing No.831 of 2002 ( Shankar Lal Sharma Vs. K.E.C. International Limited and Another). The aforesaid special appeal bearing No.831 of 2002 came to be filed against the decision given by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition bearing No.5623 of 1999 challenging the award passed by the learned Industrial Tribunal dated -2- 06.07.1999 by the workman. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition vide judgment dated 08.05.2002 observing therein that the reference was answered in favour of the petitioner by way of an award of reinstatmenet of the workman, but no consequential benefits, as claimed by the workman-Shankar Lal Sharma was allowed and, therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner seeking the monetory benefits cannot be allowed and the writ petition was dismissed. The petitioner challenged the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge before the learned Division Bench and the learned Division Bench while deciding the appeal observed in its order as follows : “Aggrieved and dissatisfied with the judgment dated 08.05.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge and award dated 06.07.1999, the appellant has preferred this special appeal”. The Division Bench, while deciding the appeal observed as follows : “Thus, the appellant is entitled to get the consequential benefits and amenities as indicated by the Industrial Tribunal upto the date of his fresh dismissal from service. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 08.05.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge is quashed and set aside. The writ petition stands allowed. The appellant can file an application under Section 33 (c) (2) of the Act before the learned Labour court for the purposes of quantifying the consequential benefits and amenities. From the above, it was clear that the learned Division -3- Bench affirmed the judgment of the learned Industrial Tribunal and granted the benefits to the petitioner with effect from 23.01.1991. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner was entitled to computaiton of his wages qua the persons junior to him on the date of his initial termination, which is 09.08.1981 and not 23.01.1991. The petitioner, therefore, by way of the present contempt petition has contended that the learned Division Bench having allowed the appeal and holding that the writ petition stand allowed, in fact accepted the prayer of the petitioner that he was entitled to get the monetary benefits with effect from 09.08.1981 and the learned Industrial Tribunal erred deliberately, contrary to the judgment of the learned Division Bench in proceedings to compute the wages and monetary benefits with effect from 23.01.1991 . So far as the above contention of the petitioner is concerned, we may add here that the petitioner realizing the lacuna or ambiguity as per his own contention filed a review petition before the learned Division Bench of this Court and in the review petition he specifically prayed that all consequential benefits of being in service from 09.08.1981 should be allowed to the petitioner with interest @ 24%. The averment to this effect made in the review petition at Para 245 of the paper book reads as follows : '' अत: यािचका ूःतुत कर सादर ूाथ[ना है Ǒक याची कȧ यािचका åयय सǑहत ःवीकार फरमायी जावे तथा आदेश Ǒदनांक 6.7.99 को संशोिधत Ǒकया जावे Ǒक याची ौिमक का ःथायीकरण एवं अÛय सभी लाभ जो उससे किनƵ ौिमक ौी स×य नारायण शमा[ आǑद को जो लाभ ǔजस Ǒदनांक अथा[त 9.8.1981 से Ǒदये गये वे सभी -4- लाभ-पǐरलाभ याची ूाƯ करने का अिधकारȣ है। ूाथȸ के Ʈारा यािचका सं. 6613/1998 मɅ चाज[ सǑहत Ǒदनांक 9.8.81 से 30 िसतàबर,1999 तक ूःतुत कर चुका है। याची ौिमक Ǒदनांक 17.9.77 से 08.08.1981 तक कȧ िनरÛतर सेवा का लाभ एवं Ǒदनांक 9.8.81 से समःत ःथायीकरण के सभी लाभ एवं पǐरलाभ मेडɉ सǑहत पाने का अिधकारȣ है ǔजस पर िनयमानुसार 24 ूितशत वाǒष[क दर से Þयाज भी Ǒदलवाया जावɅ। '' In-spite of the above prayer having been made before the learned Division Bench by the petitioner by way of the above review petition the learned Division Bench did not find favour with the petitioner and the review petition (78/2006) came to be decided vide its order dated 13.09.2007, which reads as follows.:-“ Having heard the review-petitioner and upon persusal of the averments made in the review petition, we are not satisfied with the reasons stated in the review petition and submissions made on behalf of the petitioner-himself. No case for reviewing the order passed by the Division Bench dated 08.04.2006 (18.04.2008) is made out. Consequently, the review petition fails and the same is hereby dismissed. The above facts, therefore, clearly go to show that the learned Division Bench did not intend to grant any benefits, as claimed by the petitioner with effect from 09.08.1981 and, therefore, we find no reason to allow this contempt petition as no contempt is made out. The contempt petition is accordingly dismissed. The notices are discharged. (Mahesh Chand Sharma) J. (Dalip Singh), J. -5- Ashok/