HARINDER SINGH Vs. JOGINDER SINGH AHUJA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners who are employees of the Batala Co-operative Sugar Mill Limited (hereinafter called the 'Mill') had filed an application under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for the determination of their wages from the Mill. The Labour Court vide its award dated 20.1.1991, determined the wages due to each employee and in pursuance of the recovery proceedings, the Labour- cum-Conciliation Officer, Batala, exercising the powers of Assistant Collector, attached the account of the Mill with the Gurdaspur Central Cooperative Bank Ltd. on 28,8.1991. Aggrieved by the Award, the respondent Mill filed Civil Writ Petition No. 11158 of 1991 in this court which was admitted on 21.7.1991 and notice regarding stay was issued on 14.8.1991, on which date the workmen appeared and took time for filing a written statement. The case was accordingly adjourned to 3.9.1991 for arguments on stay and on that day the following order was passed:-

(2.) The respondents in their written statements have denied any violation of this Court's order. Respondent No. 2 has stated that he was not a party to the writ petition and the order of this Court dated 3.9.1991 was never brought to his notice prior to the release of the attachment which he had ordered. He has also stated that the order of attachment was vacated as there was an apprehension of breach of peace at the instance of the Cane growers who were agitating for payment for the Cane supplied by them. Respondent No. 1, i.e. the Ex. Managing Director of the Mill has also denied that he was aware of the order of this Court of 3.9.1991 at the time when he moved an application for vacation of of the attachment order, or when he had withdrawn the amount lying in the Bank.

(3.) After hearing the arguments addressed by the counsel for the respondent, I find no merit in this petition. It is to be noted at the very outset that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and the standard of proof required for conviction should be akin to that of a criminal case. There is no concrete proof which has been put on record by the petitioner to show that the order of this Court dated 3.9.1991 had been conveyed to respondent No.2. It is clear that an application giving some details about this court's order was filed before respondent No. 2 on 4.9.1991, although he was not a party to the petition but at that stage the attachment had already been vacated and apparently the amount had also been withdrawn. No fault can therefore be found on the conduct of respondent No.2. Although the Mill was represented by counsel on 3.9.1991 yet there can be no presumption that the order of this Court was conveyed to it. As a matter of fact, there is no allegation in the petition that the petitioners had at any stage filed any application nor communicated any order or information to respondent No.1.