Mir Dara Sheko, J. - (1.) The orders impugned dated November 18, 2015 and August 24, 2016 of learned Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal at Kolkata arose in the Tender Case No.42 of 2015 in respect of the applications filed by the petitioner and therefore both the C.O.s pursuant to order dated 26.04.2017 have been heard for analogous disposal.
(2.) Admitted backdrops are as follows:- (a) The petitioner filed application before Employees' Insurance Court, West Bengal at Kolkata being Tender Case No.42 of 2015 for certain declarations against the Employees' State Insurance Corporation with the following prayer:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that Your Honour would be graciously pleased to pass an order condoning, waiving and/or reducing the amount as per provision of Section 75(2B) of Employees' State Insurance Act and/or waiving the condition for deposit of 50% of the alleged demand/claim amount vide order dated 31.03.2015 by invoking the proviso of the said section and register the application of the dispute and/or to pass any order or orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper, for the ends of justice." (b) The petitioner also filed application praying temporary injunction against the opposite party pending said tender case. The prayer of said application for temporary injunction is set out:- "to pass an order of temporary injunction restraining the opposite party, ESI Corporation jointly or severally through their men and agents, officers from proceedings any further for recovery of the purported/alleged contribution plus interest till the final disposal of the main petition." To pass ad-interim injunction pending final disposal of the main application. To pass any other orders as Your Honour may deem fit and proper, for the ends of justice. (c) On being moved learned Judge, Employees' Insurance Court, shortly to be called on hereafter as learned Court passed interim order on July 3, 2015, penultimate part of which is set out:- "HD. Ld. Lawyers of both sides. LD. Lawyer for the E.S.I Corporation with his as usual fairness submitted that he has got no objection if ad-interim order be passed till the next date i.e. on 24.07.2015 and to give permission to operate Bank Account since the case is pending and next date has been fixed on 24.07.2015. Considering the respective submissions of the LD. Lawyers, materials on record and the attending circumstances of the instant case I find sufficient prima facie case in favour of the applicant. Balance of convenience and inconvenience is also in favour of the applicant. Thus, I am inclined to grant ad-interim order in favour of the applicant. The O.P its men and agents are hereby restrained by the ad-interim order of injunction from realizing and/or recovering any amount on the strength of the impugned order under Section 45A of the E.S.I Act and on the strength of the recovery notice till 24.07.2015." (d) Xerox copy of aforesaid interim order of injunction was communicated to the ESI Corporation by the learned Counsel of the Petitioner along with a letter of the same day i.e. July 03. 2015, by hand delivery. (e) Admittedly the AXIS Bank, Burrabazar Branch, was the Banker of the petitioner, where the petitioner's current account in question has been lying from where transaction between the parties takes place on Garnishee order. (f) Said AXIS Bank was not a party either in the suit or in the temporary injunction application or even in the contempt application where punishment only against the opposite parties i.e. concerned E.S.I. authorities was sought for.
(3.) Mr. Chaturvedi, assisted by Mr. Banerjee learned Counsel for the petitioner relying upon the letter dated July 03, 2015 argued that though the injunction order passed by the court was an interim order bearing prohibition on satisfaction of prima facie case of the petitioner, and while there was injunction restraining the E.S.I Corporation "from realizing and/or recovering any amount" on the strength of the Garnishee order in question, and while it was brought to the knowledge of the opposite party then there was clear violation of injunction order since money from the petitioner's account from the said bank was withdrawn. Accordingly criticizing the impugned order dated November 18, 2015, since the contempt application was rejected observing that learned Court found no force on it, prayed or its setting aside, since, as argued, the rejection order was without any reason. Further submitted that being frustrated by aforesaid rejection order against complain of contemptuous act while the petitioner filed application on February 02, 2016 praying for direction upon the Recovery Officer of the ESI Corporation to refund the money, so recovered from the AXIS Bank violating the injunction order, said application also was rejected under wrong perception by observing incorrectly that there was no violation of court's order. Further argued that learned court also wrongly rejected the application dated February 17, 2016 with the observation that the earlier application dated December 12, 2015 "is in substance akin to the application under consideration." Mr. Chaturvedi relying upon the case of Tara Narayan & Ors. Vs. Sheo Krishna & Ors., 2011 1 CalHN 237 (CAL), and in the case of Samee Khan Vs. Bindu Khan, 1998 AIR(SC) 2765 submitted that even if the order of temporary injunction would exist as interim measure pending final disposal of application for temporary injunction it would have to be presumed to exist till the court would order otherwise, therefore according to Mr. Chaturvedi, the act of disobedience of order dated July 03, 2015 having been taken on 6th July, 2015 the impugned orders should be set aside and to allow the Revisional applications by giving appropriate direction to the court below, since, according to him at least the money of the petitioner ought to have been directed for refund.;