SINGLE BENEH IN THE HON’BLE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH Petitioners \Lwg Writ Petition ( C ) No. /2011 1. KVR Mohanan S/o Late Shri Achutha Warrier Aged about 63 ycars Ex ~ Asstt. General Manager (Finance), Bhilai Steel Plant , Durg (C.G.) - Presently Residing At Kotumbu Variam , Palghat (Kerala) 2. S.S. Bains S/o Shri Kartar Singh, Sr. Manager (P—CLC), ()ld Administrative Office, Bhilai Steel Plant Ding (C.G.) / 3. N.S.R Krishna, S/o Shri Radha Krishna Muithy, Asstt. General Manager, Coal Handling Plant, Power Plant no. l, Bhilai Steel Plant , Durg (C.G.) 4f 13.1). Haridas, S/o Late Shri 13.P. Parmeswaran Nair, Dy Manager (P), C.L.C., Old Administrative ()flice, Bhilai Steel Plant Durg (C.G.) Versus g,- Respondents 1. State Industrial Court Chhattisgarh, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Nandkishore Khandewal, S/o Late Gajanand Khandewal Pragati Nagar, Azad Market Risali, Bhilai, Durg (C.G.) Contractor. Writ Petition Under Article 226/227 of Constitution of India For Issuance of Appropriate Writ , Directions Or Orders. The Petitioners, aboveanamed, most humbly and respectfully beg to submit as under: 3 triti/fW £4 C//aLMm// i AT BILASPUR. (>0) HIGH COURT OF CHHA'ITISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1473 of2011 K.V.R.Mohanan & Others. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : State Indusu-ial Coutt, Chattisgarh, Raipur & Another. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA f. SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri B.P.Mishra, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri H.B.Agawal, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER ORAL s (Passed on 12 day ofJuly, 2011) By this petition, th‘e’petjtioner seeks quashing of the contempt proceedings under section 104 and 105 of the Chhattisgarh Industrial Relations Act, 1960 and mrther, the quashing of the order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby warrant of arrest has been directed to be issued against the petitioner No. 1. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the ' learned Industrial Court, while passing the order dated 30.07.2010 (Annexure P/3) directed the petitioners to release the amount of Rs. 5,09,656/- immediately. However, this amount could be released on 15.09.2010. Prior to release of the said amount, a contempt proceeding was tiled by the respondent No. 2 on 18.08.2010 and notices were issued. After receiving the notices, preliminary submissions were tiled stating that the payment has already been made on 15.09.2010, but the Industrial Court did not dispose of the contempt petition and directed for personal appearance ofthe petitioners. Shri Mishra turther submits that the petitioner No. 2, 3 and 4 have already caused their appearance \ before the learned Industrial Court and the petitioner No. 1 was f\ ‘x \ also represented through his counsel, could not appear on 17.02.2011. A medical cettificate alongwith an application for exemption oom personal appearance was also filed but the same was dismissed. Consequent thereof, a waxrant of arrest was issued against him on the same day. Shri Mishra next submits that when there was no time bound direction for release the amount in question, which has already been released on 15.09.2010, no case for contempt was made out. Qn the other hand, Shri Agawal, learned Senior counsel appearing with Ms. Sareena Khan, counsel for the respondent No. 2 fairly submits that the amount in dispute has been paid by the petitioners to the respondent No. 2 on 15.09.2010, but the same was paid belatedly. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. So far as issuance of warrant of arrest against the petitioner No. l is concerned, the same is not justified as the petitioner No. l was already represented through his counsel before the Industrial Court and had also med an application for exemption horn personal appearance as he had fallen sick. A medical certificate to that eli‘ect was also filed. Thus, in the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the Indusu‘ial Court ought to have dispensed with his personal appearance and ought to have given any other date for his presence before the Industrial Court. The contempt petition was tiled by the respondent No. 2 when the order dated 30.07.2010 (Annexure P/3) of the Industrial Court was not complied by the "‘\\authorities of the Bhilai Steel Plant i.e. the petitioners herein. However, it is an admiued position that the amount of Rs. 5,09,656/~ was paid by the authorities of the Bhilai Steel Plant on 15.09.2010 before initiation of the contempt case. In this way, the order of the Industrial Couit has already been complied. Thus, no huitful purpose would be served if the contempt proceeding is allowed to continue. In view ofthe foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the contempt proceedings in M.J.C. No. Ol/CGIR Act/2010 is quashed. Consequently, the order dated 17.02.2011 (Annexure P/l) whereby warrant of arrest against the petitioner No. 1 was issued, is also quashed. The petition is allowed. No order asto costs. M” sal- SATISH K. ANGNmom / Judge Amit