R.R.K.TRIVEDI, J. - (1.) All the aforesaid appeals are from the various orders passed in Civil Contempt Petition No. 31 of 1996 and Civil Contempt Petition No. 1629 of 1996 and on the applications moved in the aforesaid contempt petitions. Both the above contempt cases were being heard together before the learned Single Judge. Thus similar questions of law and facts are involved in these appeals which are being decided by a common judgment with the consent of the learned Counsel for the parties. Contempt Appeal No. 7 of 1998 shall be the leading case.
(2.) FOR proper appreciation of the rival submission made by the learned Counsel for the parties in the aforesaid appeals. It is necessary to mention the disputes between the parties which were decided by this Court and by Hon'ble Supreme Court by different orders, the willful disobedience of which was alleged in Contempt Petition No. 31 of 1996 and 1629 of 1996. Writ Petition (C) No. 534 of 1991 was filed before Hon'ble Supreme Court under Article 32 of the Constitution of India by the respondents and others, employees of the U.P, Bridge Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the Corporation) which a Public Sector Undertaking of the State of U.P., claiming the reliefs. The first relief was regarding appropriate salary for the work done and the second relief was for regularisations of services. This petition along with other writ petition No. 766 of 1991 was disposed of on 29.8.1991. So far as payment of appropriate salary is concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under : - 'It is difficult to accept this contention. The petitioners -degree holders are paid at the same rate as the regular degree holders. There is no reason to make distinction between petitioners diploma holders and the regular diploma holders. Besides, even under the Minimum Wages Act, a paid day of rest for every period of seven days is mandatory. The diploma degree holders among the petitioners should, therefore, be paid Rs. 1400/ - per month.' So far as regularisation as concerned, Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 'Counsel for the Corporation has, and we must accept the position that this argument is justified that all such vacancies which would occur henceforth, shall ordinarily be filled up by regularising employees like the petitioners who are directly employed by the Corporation and as and when that is not possible for same reason, on temporary basis deputanists may be accepted so as to ensure that no deputanist functions for more then six months. Persons already on deputation are not intended to be covered by this Orders. As and when the Corporation suggests to Government for filling up of the vacancies, we suggest that Government may consider the request favourably and with a sense of immediately. The writ petitions are disposed of. No order for costs.' - - - -
(3.) AFTER the aforesaid order was passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the Corporation on 28.10.1991 retrenched the respondents from service which was challenged in writ petition No. 34989 of 1991 by Vinai Kumar Singh, Ajai Kumar Singh and Om Prakash Pandey. In this writ petition in interim order was passed on 13.1.1992 to the following effect : 'Issue notice. In the meanwhile the respondents are directed not to fill up any vacancy in the post of work supervisor/junior engineer existing or occurring hence forth in any of its projects without first considering the petitioners for appointment against such vacancies.';