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

1. These appeals arise out of two orders, one dated 16th-18th February, 2005 passed by a Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay in C.P. No. 189 of 1998 filed in Writ Petition No. 5981 of 1997 and the other dated 16th August, 2005, passed in Contempt Appeal No. 1 of 2005 arising out of the earlier mentioned proceedings. By an order dated 23rd March, 1998, a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Bombay disposed of Writ Petition No. 5981 of 1997 with certain directions. One of the directions required Respondents No. 1 and 2, Appellant(s) herein, not to remove persons mentioned in Exhibit-A, presently in employment and also not to change the terms of their employment. Alleging breach of the said direction, the writ 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.

Reasoning:
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.