1 scp142.2000.sxw IN THE HIGH COURT OF JDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLTE CIVIL JURISDICTION SUO MOTU CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 142 OF 2000 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1642 OF 2000 High Court on its Own Motion ......Petitioner V. 1. Municipal Mazdoor Union Bal Dandavate Smruti, 237-239 N.M. Joshi Marg, Opp. Bawala Masjid, Mumbai-400 012 2. Shri Sharad Rao, Working President Municipal Mazdoor Union, 204, Raja Ram Mohan Roy Marg, Hind Kisan Panchayat Bldg., Girgaon, Mumbai-400 004. 3. Shri Mahabal Shetty, General Secretary, Municipal Mazoor Union, 237-239, N.M. Joshi Marg, Opp. Bawala Masjid, Mumbai-400 012, 4. Mumbai Mahanagarpalika Karyalayaeeen Karmachari Sanghatana, Municipal Head Office, Annex bldg. Near Information Counter, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, 2 scp142.2000.sxw Mumbai-400 001. 5. Shri Prakash Devdas General Secretary,Municipal Head Office, Annex bldg. Near Information Counter, Mahapalika Marg, Fort, Mumbai-400 001. 6. Brihanmumbai Mahapalika Shikshak Sabha Municipal School Building, Room No.24, 1st Floor, Jagganath Bhatankar Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. 7. Shri Ramesh Joshi, General Secretary, Municipal School Building, Room No.24, 1st Floor, Jagganath Bhatankar Marg, Parel, Mumbai 400 012. 8. The Bombay Municipal Kamgar Sangh, "Swapnapurti" Maharashtra Hsg. Board, Bldg. Room No. 105, 106, 1st floor, Jerbai Wadia Marg, Parel Naka Parel, Mumbai-400 012, 9. Shri Madhu Mohite, "Swapnapurti" Maharashtra Hsg. Board, 3 scp142.2000.sxw Bldg. Room No. 105, 106, 1st floor, Jerbai Wadia Marg, Parel Naka Parel, Mumbai-400 012. 10. Municipal Kamgar Sena, Shivsena Bhavan, 2nd floor, Gadkari Chowk, Shivaji Park, Mumbai -400 028. 11. Shri Sada Kamtekar, (Deleted vide Court's General Secretary, order dated 26-10-2007) Municipal Kamgar Sena, Shivsena Bhavan, 2nd floor, Gadkari Chowk, Shivaji Park, Mumbai -400 028. ...Contemnors. Mr. A.Y. Sakhare, Senior Advocate and Mr. M.M. Malvankar for or the Petitioner in Writ Petition No. 1642 of 2000. Mr. Mahesh S. Londhe i/by M/s. Sanjay Udeshi & Co. for the Contemnor Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Rajiv Patil i./by Mr. Sachin S. Pande for Contemnor Nos. 6 to 8. Mr. Prakash S. Devdas Contemnor No. 5-in person. CORAM : A.S. OKA,J. 4 scp142.2000.sxw DATE : 16TH DECEMBER, 2010. JUDGMENT ( PER A.S. OKA, J.) 1. Perused the order dated 30th March, 2000 passed by this Court in Writ Petition No. 1642 of 2000. Under the said order, this Court recorded a prima facie finding that the order dated 22nd March, 2000 has been willfully disobeyed at the instance and behest of the contemnors. This Court directed that notice of civil contempt be issued to respondent Nos. 1 to 11 in the said writ petition. Apart from the said direction, Suo Motu proceedings of criminal contempt were ordered be registered against the said respondents in the said petition. However, this Court is only dealing with the civil contempt. 2. On 21st March, 2000, the aforesaid writ petition was paced before this Court. This Court passed ad interim order in terms of prayer clause (b). On 22nd March, 2000, the petition was taken up for admission and a detailed order was passed by this Court issuing Rule and granting interim relief. Clause (iv) of the said order reads thus: The following interim order shall remain operative:- (a) For a period of 14 days from 15-3-2000, the commencement and continuation of the strike by the unions and employees of the Bombay Municipal Corporation is declared illegal and they are directed to cease and desist from the said unfair labour practice. Ad-interim order in terms of amended prayer (b) (i) which reads thus- (b) (i) Pending the hearing and final disposal of the 5 scp142.2000.sxw petition respondents 1 to 11, their members, servants, agents and hirelings as the case may be restrained by an order and injunction of this Honorable Court from commencing the strike on or after 21st March, 2000. (v) The ad-interim order passed by me on 21-3-2000 in terms of prayer (b) to remain operative for a period of 14 days from 15th March, 2000. (vi) The learned senior counsel appearing for petitioners states that the present order shall be communicated to all concerned by the Bombay Municipal corporation immediately by publication in newspapers having wide circulation in the area. (vii) If for any reason for want of communication of this order, the concerned employees are not able to report for next 48 hours, no disciplinary action shall be taken against such employees on that count." 3. When the said writ petition came up before the Court on 30th March, 2000, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner ( the Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay) made a submission that the workers of the Municipal Corporation did not resume duties despite the strike was declared illegal by this Court by the aforesaid order dated 22nd March, 2000. Thus as far as allegation of civil contempt is concerned, the breach noted by this Court in order dated 30th March, 2000 is that notwithstanding the interim order passed on 22nd March, 2000 the workers did not resume duties due to overt acts of the contemnors. The 1st, 4th, 5th, 8th and 10th contemnors appear to be Unions allegedly representing the members of the staff of Municipal Corporation. The 2nd and 3rd contemnors are the office bearers of the 1st contemnors. The 5th contemnor is the General Secretary of 4th contemnor. The 7th contemnor is the General Secretary of 6th 6 scp142.2000.sxw contemnor. The 9th contemnor is the office bearer of 8th contemnor and 11the contemnor happens to be the General Secretary of 10th contemnor. The name of the 11th contemnor was deleted by order dated 26th October, 2007. The 2nd, 3rd, 5th and 7th contemnors are stated to be personally present in this Court. The 9th contemnor has not been served with the notice. 4. I have heard the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioners in the writ petition. I have heard the learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 3, the learned Counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 6 to 8, as well as the 5th contemnor who is personally present in the Court. 5. As far as the respondents 6 to 8 are concerned, their stand appears to be that the 6th respondent Union and its members never participated in the strike. In the affidavit tendered on record, the said respondents have tendered apology. There is an affidavit filed by the 3rd respondent, who is the General Secretary of the 1st respondent tendering an apology. He has stated that the dispute between the Municipal Corporation and the Union was settled on 27th March, 2000 and the settlement/agreement was signed on the same day. The fact that there was a settlement on 27th March, 2000 is not disputed by the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation. The settlement in the form of Minutes of the Meeting held on 27th March, 2000 is placed on record. It is stated therein that the strike of the employees was called off. There is a separate order issued by the Deputy Municipal Commissioner and Assistant Municipal Commissioner recording that there was no objection to allow Khada Badlee, daily recruits and temporary employees to resume the duties as per the settlement with 7 scp142.2000.sxw action committee on 27th March, 2000. The order records that in case of those supervisors and officers having no criminal cases pending against them, their suspension orders were withdrawn. 6. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Municipal Corporation stated on instructions that the strike came to an end on 27th March, 2000 and thereafter, the normalcy was restored. 7. Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the order of this Court dated 30th March, 2000 record the statement of the Counsel for the Municipal Corporation that notwithstanding the interim relief granted by this Court, workers did not resume duties. The fact that there was a settlement dated 27th March, 2000 to which the Municipal Corporation was a party was not brought to the notice of this Court on 30th March 2000. Now only question is whether any action is required to be taken against the contemnors. One material factual aspect is that on 27th March, 2000 there was admittedly a settlement and the strike was admittedly withdrawn. All concerned contemnors have tendered apology. There is one more aspect which needs to be considered which is noted in the affidavit of 3rd respondent that though contempt notice was ordered to be issued on 30th Mach, 2000, the same was served in June, 2007. At highest it can be said that the worker did not resume duty from 22nd March 2000 to 27th March 2000. However, the Municipal Corporation entered into settlement on 27th March, 2000 with the unions and the strike was withdrawn. The Municipal Corporation by issuing a circular condoned the default on the part of the erring employees. The contemnors have tendered apology. Considering the settlement of 27th March, 2000, this is not a case where action under the Contempt of Courts 8 scp142.2000.sxw Act, 1971 can be taken after lapse of more than 10 years. Moreover, considering the act of withdrawal of strike on 27th March, 2000, it cannot be said that there was a willful breach on the part of the contemnors. Hence, this is not a case where contemnors should be proceeded with for committing civil contempt. 8. In the circumstances, the notice issued by this Court is discharged. It must be clarified here that this Court has considered only the issue of alleged civil contempt. Petition is disposed of. JUDGE