G.P. Mathur, J. - (1.) PREM Shankar Pandey, applicant, was appointed as a temporary clerk in Krishi Utapadan Mandi Samiti, Allahabad, in November, 1973. His services were terminated on 7th April, 1978. The termination order was challenged by him by filing claim petition No. 461(f)/3/78 before the U.P. Services Tribunal but the petition was dismissed on 29 -11 -1990. Thereafter he filed writ petition No. 33609 of 1990 in which the operation of the orders dated 7th April, 1978, and 29th November, 1990, were stayed by order dated 20th December, 1990 and 18th January 1991. The present contempt petition has been filed on the ground that though the Petitioner had served the certified copy of the stay order upon the Respondents on 22nd December and 28th December, 1990, but he has not been reinstated.
(2.) BOTH the Respondents have filed separate counter affidavits in response to the notices issued to them by this Court. The main plea of the Respondents is that the stay order was passed behind the back of the counsel for the Mandi Samiti and the Mandi Samiti had already moved an application supported with counter -affidavit for vacating the stay order and as two weeks, had elapsed since the filing of the stay vacating application, the stay order stood automatically vacated in view of Article 226(3) of the Constitution. It is also pleaded that the services of the Petitioner were terminated in 1978 and his claim petition was dismissed in 1990, thus he was out of employment for more than 12 years and, therefore, there was no occasion to take him back in service. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner contended that as the operation of the order terminating his services as well as the order of the tribunal dismissing the claim petition had been stayed, the Respondents were bound to reinstate him and their action in not reinstating the Petitioner and paying him entire arrears of salary amounts to flouting of the interim orders passed by this Court. In support of his submission reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of our court in Chandra veer Singh v. M.B. Mathur, 1990 AWC 47. Learned Counsel for the Respondents has, however, submitted that since there was no positive direction in the interim order passed by this Court on 20th December, 1990, for reinstating the Petitioner or for paying him the arrears of his salary, it cannot be said that the Respondents have committed wilful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court and as such the Respondents cannot be held guilty of having committed contempt of court. I have considered the submissions made by learned Counsel for the parties and in my opinion on the facts and circumstances of the present case it cannot be said that the Respondents have committed contempt of court. Chandra veer Singh was an employee of the Indian Telephone Industries Ltd. which was covered by the definition of "factory" and also "industrial or other establishment" as defined by Section 2 (b) and (ii) of Payment of Wages Act, under Section 4 of Payment of Wages Act a wage -period in respect of which wages are to be paid has to be fixed and Section 5 provides that the wages of every employee shall be paid before the expiry of the 7th day or before the 10th day, as the case may be, after the last day of the wage -period in respect of which wages are payable. Section 15 of the Payment of Wages Act provides that where contrary to the provisions of the Act any payment of wages has been delayed the authority may make a direction for the payment of the delayed wages and the amount so directed to be paid may be recovered as if it were a fine imposed by a magistrate. Section 20 further provides that if a person responsible for payment of wages to an employed person contravenes the provisions of Section 5 he shall be liable to be punished. The Bench observed that the applicant Chandraveer Singh was governed by various industrial laws and after analysis of the aforesaid provisions it was held that it was incumbent upon the employer to pay salary to an employee by the date fixed every month and in case operation of the termination order was stayed it would mean that he continued to be a regular employee. It was in these circumstances that the court held that the interim order passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India staying operation of the termination order without any consequential order or direction would not be a superfluous or redundant order and the inaction even in payment of salary in the absence of any plausible explanation of delay will amount to flouting of the interim orders passed by the courts. In the case in hand the Petitioner P.S. Pandy is an employee of a Mandi Samiti which is neither a "factory" nor an "industrial or other establishment" as defined in Payment of Wages Act. There is no material on record to show that there was any such provision in the service rule governing the conditions of service of the Petitioner which required fixing of wage -period or payment of wages before a particular day. Similarly there is no material to show that non payment of wages by a particular day shall be punishable as an offence. Therefore, in my opinion the ratio of Chandraveer Singh's case (supra) will not be applicable to the case of the Petitioner.
(3.) THE Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered a similar controversy in R.M. Ramaul v. State of Himachal Pradesh : AIR 1991 SC 1171. In this case the Hon'ble Supreme Court had given a direction on 2 -12 -1988 for restoration of the applicant's seniority in service over and above two other officers of the H.P. Tourism Development Corporation in an earlier appeal filed by the applicant. In compliance of the said direction the Corporation reviewed the promotion with effect from 28 -5 -1982 and granted promotion to the applicant but treated the promotion for the period from 28 -5 -1982 to 3 -9 -1986 as a mere notional promotion without any monetary benefits. In the contempt application filed later, on the ground of non compliance of the earlier order, the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed as follows in para 2 of the report: The withholding of the monetary benefits in respect of this period is inconsistent with what was decided in the judgment and what complainant was clearly entitled to. Since there was no specific direction in this behalf in the order, technically, there may be no case for punishment for contempt, but we make it clear that the promotion for the period from 28 -5 -1982 to 3 -9 -1986 should be accompanied by the monetary' benefits, if a specific direction is necessary we issue it here and now. The appropriate monetary benefits shall be granted within two months from today. In view of the law declared by Hon'ble Supreme Court I am of opinion that as there was no specific direction in the stay order passed by this Court on 20th December, 1990, for reinstating the Petitioner or for paying him arrears of salary no case for taking action under the contempt of courts Act has been made out against the Respondents on the ground that the Petitioner has not been reinstated or has not been paid arrears of salary.;