Ashwani Kumar Mishra, J. - (1.) This contempt petition alleges disobedience of the direction issued by writ court on 13.1.2017 in Writ Petition No.50945 of 2016. The applicant, who is the writ petitioner, retired in 1999 and was litigating with regard to his claim for payment of salary pursuant to an award made in Adjudication Case No.14 of 1997. The award itself was challenged by the State of Uttar Pradesh in Writ Petition No. 48505 of 1999, which came to be dismissed on 17.9.2013. The department even thereafter did not comply with the award and so the applicant approached the competent authority under section 6(h)(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act. The authority concerned allowed claim of the applicant for payment of Rs.2,70,165/- vide order dated 12.1.2016. This order also attained finality and was not put to any challenge. Since the order was not complied with, petitioner approached this Court by filing Writ Petition No.50945 of 2016 in which following direction was issued on 13.1.2017:- "The Court has proceeded to examine the record in question and what we find that each and every objection was dealt with in detail. This much is also admitted situation that the amount in question has not been paid by the department and moreover, once the order has been passed by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut and the respondent has not assailed the said order before the appropriate forum then this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no infirmity or illegality in the order. The objection raised by the respondent is unsustainable. The writ petition sans merit and it is, accordingly, allowed. Consequently, a direction is issued to the District Magistrate, Meerut to realize the amount in question from the department concerned and pay the same to the petitioner-workman within a period of one month from today, failing which the petitioner would be entitled for 12% interest."
(2.) The direction was issued to the District Magistrate, Meerut, to realize the amount in question from the department concerned and pay the same to the applicant within a period of one month from the date of the order, failing which he was also entitled to payment of interest at the rate of 12%. This order was served upon the opposite party on 7.2.2017 by registered post, but even thereafter the amount was not paid. The applicant, in such circumstances, was compelled to approach this Court once again by filing Contempt Petition No.1347 of 2017, which got disposed of vide following orders on 28.3.2017:- "The grievance of the applicant is that the opposite party-contemnor has intentionally and deliberately flouted the order of the Writ Court dated 13.1.2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 50945 of 2016, copy of which order has been annexed to the affidavit accompanying the contempt application. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the aforesaid order of the Writ Court was duly served upon the opposite party by registered post on 7.2.2017 copy whereof is annexued as Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the contempt application. It is contended that in spite of service of the order of the writ Court, same has not been complied with, therefore, the opposite party has deliberately flouted the order of the Writ Court. The opposite party is bound by the order of this court and in case he does not comply with the directions of the writ court within a period of two months of receipt of this order, without any reasonable cause, the court would have no option but to proceed against him under the Contempt of Courts Act. The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within three weeks from today and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelope within a week thereafter. In case, opposite party does not comply with the aforesaid directions, it would be open to the applicant to approach this court again. With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of at this stage."
(3.) This order was also communicated to the opposite party concerned by the applicant and also by the registry of this Court but still no compliance was made. The applicant preferred this second contempt petition, wherein notices were issued on 13.7.2017. Record reveals that even thereafter nothing was done, and as such, this Court proceeded to summon the opposite party for framing of charge vide following orders passed on 12.9.2017:- "The petitioner had raised an industrial dispute which was referred to the Labour Court (II), U.P., Meerut for adjudication and was registered as Adjudication Case No. 14 of 1997. In the said adjudication case, on 08.09.1997, an ex parte award was passed thereby providing the benefit of seniority to the petitioner with effect from 15.08.1963 with further declaration that he shall be entitled to the post as well as salary in accordance with such seniority. The award passed by the Labour Court was challenged by the State through Writ C No. 48505 of 1999 which was dismissed by order dated 17.09.2013. It is not in dispute that the order dated 17.09.2013 has since become final. The petitioner thereafter filed an application under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for computation of the amount payable under the award and for recovery of the awarded amount. Pursuant to the proceedings, under Section 6-H(1), on 12.01.2016, the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Meerut Region, Meerut computed the amount payable to the petitioner as Rs. 2, 07, 165/- and directed for recovery of the said amount as arrears of land revenue from (i) Director of Agriculture, U.P., Lucknow; (ii) Deputy Director, Plant Protection, Meerut; (iii) Joint Director, Agriculture (Extension), Meerut; (iv) Plant Protection Officer, Meerut; and (v) District Agriculture Officer, Meerut. When the recovery certificate was issued by the Deputy Labour Commissioner, U.P., Meerut but was not being executed, the petitioner filed Writ C No. 50945 of 2016 for a direction upon the Collector/District Magistrate, Meerut to recover the amount computed under Section 6-H(1) of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The said writ petition was allowed by order dated 13.01.2017 and a direction was issued to the District Magistrate, Meerut to realise the amount from the department concerned and pay the same to the petitioner-workman within a period of one month from the date of the order, failing which, the petitioner was entitled to 12% interest. According to the case of the petitioner, the order passed by the Writ Court dated 13.01.2017 in Writ C No. 50945 of 2016 was served upon the District Magistrate, Meerut on 07.02.2017 but no recovery was made. Therefore Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1347 of 2017 was filed which was disposed of by order dated 28.03.2017. The order dated 28.03.2017 is being reproduced herein below:- "The grievance of the applicant is that the opposite party-contemnor has intentionally and deliberately flouted the order of the Writ Court dated 13.1.2017, passed in Writ Petition No. 50945 of 2016, copy of which order has been annexed to the affidavit accompanying the contempt application. Learned counsel for the applicant contends that the aforesaid order of the Writ Court was duly served upon the opposite party by registered post on 7.2.2017 copy whereof is annexued as Annexure-3 to the affidavit accompanying the contempt application. It is contended that in spite of service of the order of the writ Court, same has not been complied with, therefore, the opposite party has deliberately flouted the order of the Writ Court. The opposite party is bound by the order of this court and in case he does not comply with the directions of the writ court within a period of two months of receipt of this order, without any reasonable cause, the court would have no option but to proceed against him under the Contempt of Courts Act. The applicant shall supply a duly stamped registered envelope addressed to the opposite party and another self-addressed stamped envelope to the office within two weeks from today. The office shall send a copy of this order along with the self-addressed envelope of the applicant with a copy of contempt application to the opposite party within three weeks from today and keep a record thereof. The opposite party shall comply with the directions of the writ court and intimate him of the order through the self-addressed envelope within a week thereafter. In case, opposite party does not comply with the aforesaid directions, it would be open to the applicant to approach this court again. With the aforesaid observations, this application is finally disposed of at this stage." It is the case of the petitioner that pursuant to the order dated 28.03.2017 passed in Contempt Application (Civil) No. 1347 of 2017, on 11.04.2017, steps were taken to serve the process/order of the contempt court but despite service of the process from this Court, the order was not complied. Hence, this second contempt application. In this contempt application on 13.07.2017 following order was passed:- "This is second contempt application of the applicant in respect of non compliance of the order dated 13.1.2017 passed in Writ Petition No. 50945 of 2016. The first contempt application was disposed of by order dated 28.3.2017 giving two months further time to the opposite party to comply with the order passed by the Writ Court. It is stated that steps to serve the order passed by the Contempt Court was taken on 11.4.2017 and despite service of the order, no decision has been taken by the opposite party within the time provided. Let notice be issued to the opposite party returnable by 12.9.2017. If by the next date, the opposite party complies with the order dated 13.1.2017, he need not appear in person and a compliance affidavit would suffice." Today, the opposite party has filed an affidavit through Sri K.R. Singh, Additional Chief Standing Counsel. In the affidavit, an effort has been made to criticise the award which was passed by the Labour Court and it has also been pointed out that a review application was also filed against computation made in proceeding under Section 6-H(1). The counter-affidavit however reveals that the review application was rejected by order dated 16.08.2016. It has also been stated that the State Government has granted permission, vide order dated 05.07.2017, to file a review application in Writ Petition No. 50945 of 2016. It has also been stated that pursuant to the permission granted, a review application has been filed in Writ Petition No. 50945 of 2016. It has accordingly been prayed that recovery proceeding be stayed. The stand taken by the opposite party to absolve himself from the responsibility of complying with the order dated 13.01.2017 passed in Writ C No. 50945 of 2016 does not inspire confidence inasmuch as the State has not taken any decision to challenge the order dated 17.09.2013 passed in Writ C No. 48505 of 1999 by which the challenge of the State to the award passed by the Labour Court had been dismissed and further no decision has been taken by the State to challenge the computation made in exercise of proceeding under Section 6-H(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act though a bald averment has been made that an effort is being made to file writ petition against the order of the Deputy Labour Commissioner, Meerut. In so far as filing of review application in the decided writ petition No. 50945 of 2016 is concerned, that would not make any difference inasmuch as that writ petition only sought compliance of the order passed by the Labour Court under Section 6-H(1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. Moreover, there is no material to show that the order passed under Section 6H(1) has been challenged or any stay application is pending. Further, the opposite party (District Magistrate) is a mere execution body and it is not required to question the correctness of award or computation made under the award. From the record, it is clear that the State has not complied the award and the direction given by the Labour Court and opposite party has failed to comply with the direction given by this Court for as long as six months and, now, when the second contempt application has been filed, various pleas are being taken though, till date, no interim order has been obtained from any Court. Under the circumstances, this Court is of the prima facie view that the opposite party has wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this court as well as the recovery order passed by the Labour Court. Accordingly, this Court considers it appropriate to direct the opposite party to be present before the Court, in person, on 11th October, 2017 for framing of charge.";