1 IN THE HIGH COUT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.182 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO.6184 OF 2008 Ram Awadh Pal & Anr. .... Petitioners Vs. IPCA Laboratories Ltd. & Ors. .... Respondents Ms. Jane Cox for the Petitioners. Mr. C.U. Singh a/w. Mr. R.V. Paranjpe for Respondent No.2. CORAM : SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J. DATE : 25 TH SEPTEMBER, 2009. P.C. : 1. The Contempt Petition has been filed for taking action against the respondents for having committed contempt of Court by committing a willful breach of the order of this Court dated 15th January, 2009 passed in Writ Petition No.6184 of 2008. 2 2. It appears that the service conditions of the workers employed by the first respondent were governed by various settlements. Each of the settlement contains a clause indicating that the workers should observe “Good Manufacturing Practices”. According to the petitioners, a settlement was signed by respondent No.1 in conciliation on 16th May, 2008 with one of the Unions representing some of the workers employed in the first respondent-Company. That settlement has been challenged in this Court by the petitioners on the ground that the petitioner-Union was not heard when the settlement was signed in conciliation. The Division Bench of this Court has therefore stayed the settlement. Clause 22(d) of the settlement reads as under : "22(d). All documentation releated to workmen like filling BMR, BPR and Worksheet has to be done by the workmen as per cGMP requirement. Self-documentation Equipments logs, Room log etc. other than BMRs / BPRs also to be done by them." 3 3. The petitioner-Union contends that despite the settlement having been stayed, the respondent-Company is insisting on the workers to fill in BMR, BPR and Worksheet as per the cGMP requirement. The petitioners contend that there is a breach of the order of this Court as the respondent-Company is insisting that the workers should fill in the BMR and BPR and has thus committed contempt of Court. 4. It appears that some workers have been dismissed without holding enquiries in view of the fact that they have not signed the BMR and BPR. The petitioners contend that this also amounts to a contempt of the order of this Court. 5. Undoubtedly, the settlement of 16th May, 2008 has been stayed by this Court. However, a clause with respect to the "Discipline, Safety and Good Manufacturing Practices" was included in all earlier settlements. The respondent-Company contends that filling in the BMR and BPR is as per Good 4 Manufacturing Practices and, therefore, even if the settlement of 2008 has been stayed by this Court, they are entitled to direct the workers to sign the BMR and BPR in accordance with the clauses contained in the earlier settlements in respect of Good Manufacturing Practices Norms. 6. Whether the BMR and BPR are expected to be signed by the workers or some other persons is in issue. According to the petitioners, it is not the workers but the Supervisor who is expected to sign such reports, whereas the respondent-company contends that it is each operator at every stage of the manufacturing process who has to fill in the BMR and BPR and sign the same. Whether the signing of the BMR and BPR would constitute Good Manufacturing Practices Norms or not, is in dispute. Therefore, in my opinion, there can be no contempt in such a situation. 5 7. It must be established with certainty what are the Good Manufacturing Practices Norms, as mentioned in the earlier agreements, which undoubtedly would operate till such time a new agreement or settlement or award comes into force. Therefore, the contention of the petitioners that the respondent- company has committed contempt of order of this Court prima facie cannot be accepted. 8. The Contempt Petition is rejected. 9. The rejection of the Contempt Petition does not in any way reflect on the contention of either side as to whether signing of the BMR, BPR and Worksheet would constitute “Good Manufacturing Practices Norms”. ...............