Case: RASHITRIYA CHEMICALS &amp; FERTILIZERS LTD Vs. GENERAL EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION AND OTHERS

Petitioner-Respondent No. 1 herein filed Contempt Petition No. 189 of 1998 which was disposed of by a Single Judge of that court by order dated 16th-18th February, 2005. In the said contempt petition, the High Court held that the Respondents (Appellant-company) had not committed any deliberate breach of the directions issued by the court so as to call for any action in contempt against it. Even so the High Court noticed that there was a dispute regarding the rate of wages payable to the contract workers employed by the Appellant-company which required adjudication. The writ Petitioners in the original petition were for that purpose given liberty to approach the Labour Court by way of an application Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Having said so, the High Court appears to have declined the release of a sum of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by the Appellant before the High Court pursuant to an order issued to that effect on the ground that the said amount could be utilised for meeting the liability, if any, adjudged against the Appellant-company in proceedings Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Aggrieved by the order passed by the Single Judge declining to release the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by the Appellant, the Appellant filed Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2005 which was dismissed by the Division Bench of that court on the ground that no such appeal was maintainable in terms of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The present appeals by special leave assail the correctness of the orders passed by the Single Judge as well as the Division Bench, as noticed above. 2. When the matter initially came up for hearing before a Bench of this Court comprising Hon. S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ. on 7th July, 2006, this Court noticed an apparent conflict in the decisions rendered by this Court in R.N. Dey and Others Vs. Bhagyabati Pramanik and Others, and V.M. Manohar Prasad v. N. Ratnam Raju and Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 610 on the one hand and the decision of this Court in State of Maharashtra Vs. Mahboob S. Allibhoy and another, on the other. The appeals were accordingly directed to be placed before a Larger Bench to resolve the conflict. That is precisely how this appeal has been listed before us for hearing. 3. The appeals thereafter came up before this Court on 29th April, 2014 for hearing when we noticed that no one had entered appearance on behalf of Respondent No. 1 despite service. Even so and keeping in view the importance of the issues referred to us for adjudication, we had requested Mr. Shekhar Naphade, Senior Advocate, to assist us as amicus. 4. We have accordingly heard Mr. Prateek Jalan, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant-company, and learned Amicus today. On behalf of the Appellant-company, it was argued by Mr. Jalan that Respondent No. 1-Association has since been disbanded which explains the reasons why no one has entered appearance on its behalf despite notice. It was further contended that according to the instructions received from the Appellant-company, no petition Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been moved by Respondent No. 1-Association or any other person for that matter, requiring an adjudication on the question of wages payable to the employees at the relevant point of time. Both the circumstances, it was contended, make it unnecessary for this Court to look into the matter or to resolve the apparent conflict noticed in the order of reference. It was further submitted that the Appellant is a public sector undertaking in which the Central Government holds 80% equity share. That apart, the company is a solvent company and has sufficient resources to discharge any liability that may arise on account of any differential wages/amount found payable to the employees in any proceedings already initiated or that may be initiated in future. It was submitted that without going into the question whether the contempt appeal filed by the Appellant was maintainable, this Court could modify the order passed by the learned single Judge of the High Court to the extent the said order declined release of the money, deposited by the Appellant, and directed its retention till such time the adjudication took place. The fact that no application Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 has been filed for the past nearly 10 years and even the Association itself disbanded, clearly suggest that there is no immediate liability nor is there any possibility of any such adjudication taking place in near future. Detaining the entire amount of Rs. 30 lakhs deposited by the Appellant for discharge of any liability that may but appears to be unlikely to arise even in the future is therefore not a very prudent course of action, argued by learned Counsel for the Appellant-company. Mr. Shekhar Naphade, learned amicus, submitted that keeping in view the factual assertions made at the Bar on behalf of the Appellant-company there should be no difficulty in directing release of the amount deposited by the Appellant-company together with interest, if any accrued on the same, with the observation that the Appellant-company shall meet the liability as and when the same is determined and keep sufficient resources available for that purpose. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the fact that Respondent No. 1-Association has not appeared to contest the present proceedings nor is there anything to suggest that any petition Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed at any stage, so also the fact that the Appellant happens to be a solvent company and has sufficient resources to meet the liability that may arise on account of any differential wages held payable to the employees by the said company, we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs, lying in deposit before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, can be released in favour of the Appellant-Company.

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 1

Explanation:
1[ds]In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the fact that Respondent No. 1-Association has not appeared to contest the present proceedings nor is there anything to suggest that any petition Under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 was filed at any stage, so also the fact that the Appellant happens to be a solvent company and has sufficient resources to meet the liability that may arise on account of any differential wages held payable to the employees by the said company, we are of the view that the amount of Rs. 30 lakhs, lying in deposit before the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, can be released in favour of the Appellant-Company.