CHUNNI DEVI Vs. O.P. MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appropriate government under its notification dt. 15.04.1998 referred the industrial dispute for its adjudication to the Labour Court Bikaner. The dispute so referred was answered under the award dt. 01.08.2001 with a direction to the employer to reinstate the workman in service with compensation of Rs. 2500/ -. By way of filing a petition for writ, a challenge was given to the award aforesaid by the employer. The writ petition came to be dismissed on 29.06.2011 and that order was further affirmed by a Division Bench of this Court on rejection of D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 983/2011 vide order dt. 25.04.2012. After rejection of the writ petition, the employer reinstated the workman in the year 2010 and subsequent thereto they are also making payment of wages regularly.

(2.) THE grievance of the petitioner -workman is that she is entitled for complete wages from the date the award was made in view of the fact that she is required to be treated as reinstated in service on the day the award acquired finality on its publication as per Section 17 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, 'the Act of 1947'). Alleging non -compliance of the directions given under the award, this contempt petition is preferred. In totality, claim of the petitioner is with regard to determination of her wages and further payment of the same from the date the award acquired finality. Such determination is to be made by the Labour Court as per Section 33 -C(2) of the Act of 1947. The petitioner, therefore, is having an adequate remedy available for redressal of her grievance. In such circumstances, I am not inclined to initiate proceedings against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Accordingly, the contempt petition is dismissed. The petitioner, however, is at liberty to avail appropriate remedy under the Act of 1947.