1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 333 OF 2008 Marathwada Sarva Shramik Sanghtana ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri. A.S. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri. U.S. Malte, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3. WITH CONTEMPT PETITION NO. 334 OF 2008 Marathwada Sarva Shramik Sanghtana ....Petitioner. Versus The State of Maharashtra & others ....Respondents. Shri. A.S. Shelke, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri. S.K. Kadam, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri. U.S. Malte, Advocate for the respondent Nos. 3. 2 CORAM : R.K. DESHPANDE, J. DATE : 26th November, 2009 ORAL ORDER : 1. Heard Shri. Shelke, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Malte, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 3. 2. These contempt petitions complain about willful disobedience of the orders dated 13th of August 2003, passed by this Court on Civil Application No. 7860/2002 filed in Writ Petition No. 3273/2002 and on Civil Application 7861/2002 filed in Writ Petition No. 3451/2002 as modified by an order dated 12th of April 2007, passed by the Division Bench of this Court, in Letters Patent Appeal Nos. 101 and 102 of 2004 and further confirmed by the Apex Court vide its order dated 7.3.2008, dismissing SLP (Civil) 7708-7709/2008. 3. The complaint (ULP) Nos. 26/1992 and 18/1992 filed by the present petitioner have been allowed by the learned Judge of the Labour Court, Aurangabad on 7th August 1999 and the operative part of the judgment in complaint ULP No. 26/1992 is reproduced below :- "1. The complaint is allowed. 2. It is hereby declared that the respondents have engaged in an unfair labour practice in terminating the services of the employees w.e.f. 27.1.92. The respondents are desist from continuing the unfair labour practice henceforth. 3 3. The respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to reinstate the employees shown in Annexure "A" which is a part and parcel of the judgment in service with continuity of service and backwages within a period of two months from the date of this order. 4. No order as to costs." Operative part of the judgment in complaint (ULP) No. 18/1992 is reproduced below :- "1. The complaint is allowed. 2. It is hereby declared that the respondents have engaged in an unfair labour practice in terminating the services of the employees w.e.f. 09.12.91. The respondents are desist from continuing the unfair labour practice hencforth. 3. The respondent No. 3 is hereby directed to reinstate the employees shown in Annexure "A" which is a part and parcel of the judgment in service with continuity of service and backwages within a period of two months from the date of this order. 4. No order as to costs." 4. The employer challenged these orders by filing Writ Petition Nos. 3451/2002 and 3273/2002 before this Court. In said Writ Petitions, Civil Application Nos. 7861/2002 and 7860/2002, respectively, were moved for stay of reinstatement. The learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the said applications and in C.A. No. 7861/2002 observed as under :- "In the result, I pass the following order. The Civil Application is rejected. Liberty to petitioner to apply for stay of the Order of re- instatement by placing relevant material indicating non availability of work on record, after it pays the respondents all the backwages as are directed o be 4 paid by the Labour Court." The learned Single Judge of this Court in C.A. No. 7860/2002 observed as under :- "In the result, I pass the following order. The Civil Application is rejected. Liberty to petitioner to apply for stay of the Order of re- instatement by placing relevant material indicating non availability of work on record, after it pays the respondents all the backwages as are directed o be paid by the Labour Court." 5. The employer preferred LPA Nos. 101 and 102 of 2004 which are decided by judgment and order dated 12th of April 2007 and the operative part of the same is reproduced below :- "5. We, therefore, direct that the appellant shall deposit the amount in this Court instead of paying it directly to the workers whereafter they shall have liberty to move learned Single Judge to allow them to place on record the material showing as to how reinstatement is not possible due to non-availability of work and also that they may be heard before the amount can be paid out to the workers. We also clarify that the appellant shall have liberty to move the learned Single Judge for early disposal of writ petition since while issuing Rule the writ petition is already expedited." 6. The employer thereafter preferred Special Leave Petitions before the Apex Court and the same are dismissed with a request to this Court to dispose of the writ petition on merits in accordance with law within a period of three months from the date of the communication of the order. 5 7. Shri. Shelke, the learned counsel for the petitioner, has urged that although the basic order of reinstatement and backwages is passed by the Labour Court, the learned Single Judge of this Court rejected the application for grant of stay to the same, which order is slightly modified by the Division Bench, by upholding part of rejection of the application for grant of stay. In view of the orders passed by the learned Single Judge on 13th August 2003 and by the Division Bench order on 12th of April 2007, according to Shri. Shelke, the respondents were required to deposit the entire amount of backwages in this Court and upon deposit of this amount, the employer was at liberty to move the application for grant of stay to the reinstatement by making out a case for that purpose. Thus, according to him, the orders passed by the Labour Court, have ultimately been confirmed by way of an interim order passed by this Court. 8. When the question was put up to Mr. Shelke, as to why remedy under section 48 of the MRTU and PULP Act cannot be availed, he answered that such an application being criminal ULP No. 4/2004 was filed before the Labour Court under section 48 of the said Act, however, it was withdrawn in view of the order passed by this Court. According to him, as a result of the orders passed by this Court, the respondents were duty bound to deposit the amount, failing which it amounts to willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court and thus, the respondent No. 2 has invited the liability of conviction under section 12 of the 6 Contempt of Courts Act. According to the learned counsel, this is a case of willful disobedience of the order passed by this Court and hence, the remedy under section 48 of the said Act, ceased to be available to the petitioner. 9. It is not disputed that the basic orders of reinstatement and backwages are of the Labour Court passed on 7th of August 1999, as reproduced earlier. This Court rejected the applications for interim relief and granted liberty to the respondents to apply for the order of stay of reinstatement, only after payment of backwages to the petitioner. As per the modified order dated 12th of April 2007, the respondents were put to a condition that they shall deposit the amount of entire backwages as a condition precedent, for moving their application for grant of stay to the order of reinstatement, by producing material on record. The order passed by the learned Single Judge as well as by the Division Bench provides the consequences of not complying with the order of depositing of backwages. The consequence is that the respondent is not entitled to move an application for grant of stay to the reinstatement of the petitioner in service. Ultimate result is that the orders passed by the Labour Court on 7.8.1999 in complaint ULP Nos. 26/1992 and 18/1992 became enforceable. Section 48 of the said Act makes the willful disobedience of the order passed by the Labour Court, an offence. 10. In view of this, in my opinion, the remedy is available to the 7 petitioner under section 48 of the said Act. The Petitioner has withdrawn the application under section 48 which was criminal ULP No. 4/2004 on 7.11.2008. It is made clear that the petitioner shall be at liberty to file fresh application, if it was withdrawn under the wrong impression that the order passed by this Court on 13th of August 2003 and 12th of April 2007, divested the jurisdiction of the Labour Court in dealing with the application under section 48 of MRTU & PULP Act. It is further made clear that none of the observations made in this order shall come in the way of the Labour Court in proceeding with the matter under section 48. It is further made clear that pendency of the writ petitions before this Court shall also not come in the way of the Labour Court in proceeding with the proceedings under section 48 of MRTU & PULP Act. 11. In the result, there is no substance in the instant contempt petition and the same is dismissed with the aforesaid observations. [ R.K. DESHPANDE, J. ] ssc/cp333/334.08