PERMOD KOHLI,J. - (1.) INVOKING jurisdiction of this Court under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Sections of 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, thirty persons (Workmen) have filed this petition for initiating proceedings for contempt against the officials of M/s. Jardine Henderson Ltd. (MEAMECO Division), Barwa Road, Dhanbad (hereinafter referred to as the Company)
(2.) THE petitioners are the workmen of the Company. A dispute was raised by the Union regarding retrenchment of certain workers. The dispute came to be referred to the Industrial Tribunal, Dhanbad by the appropriate Government on 3.2.1988. The reference was answered against the workmen and in favour of the Management. The Union preferred C.W.J.C. No. 1408 of 1994(R) challenging the Award of the Industrial Tribunal before this Court. This writ petition was decided by a learned Single Judge of this Court vide judgment dated 23.8.2002 in which following observations/directions were issued: 12. In the aforesaid background, the retrenchment of 101 (one hundred one) workmen of 'Meameco Division' being violative of Section 25N of the I.D. Act, 1947 the retrenchment order dated 13th January, 1988 cannot be upheld. 13. So far as 22 (twenty two) workmen of 'M/S Jardine Victor Ltd.' is concerned, they having been provided with the notice pay and benefit as per Section 25F of the I.D. Act, 1947 and there being no illegality, I find nothing wrong in respect to them. 14. For the reasons as mentioned above the award the respect to 101 (one hundred one) workmen of Meameco Division of M/S Jardine Ltd. is set aside in respect to those workmen. So far as the award in respect to 22(twenty two) workmen of 'Jardine Victor Ltd.' is concerned, the award is upheld. 15. All the 101 (one hundred one) workmen in question will be entitled for consequential benefits including monetary benefit to which they are entitled under the law. The respondent management is directed accordingly. The Company filed a Letters Patent Appeal being L.P.A. No. 577 of 2002 and a Division Bench of this Court affirmed the judgment of the learned Single Judge by making following observations: In this situation, the judgment of the learned single Judge is affirmed and the appeal is dismissed making it clear that the right if any of the appellant to move made Section 25N(6) of the Industrial Disputes Act is not in any manner affected by this decision.
(3.) PRESENT petitioners are 30 workmen out of 101 in whose favour this Court passed the order. Alleging non -compliance of the judgment of this Court, this contempt petition has been filed. Answering opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 were put to notice. Later opposite party No. 4 was also impleaded vide Court's order dated 12.5.2006, Opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 filed their show -cause dated 10.5.2006 alleging, inter alia, that opposite party Nos. 2 and 3 named in the contempt petition, have retired from the Company on 30.3.2004 and 30.3.2005 respectively. At the same time, they have defended the action of opposite party No. 4 -Company on variety of grounds. Some of the contentions raised are noted below: It is submitted that the order passed by this Court in LP A No. 577 of 2002 was challenged before the Apex Court in Civil Appeal No. 4466 of 2004 which has been dismissed vide order dated 27.10.2005. After dismissal of the Special Leave Petition. the petitioners approached the Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad for calculation of the monetary benefits in terms of the Court's order. During the pendency of the litigation, 71 workmen out of 101 settled with the Company. However, remaining 30 workmen i.e. the petitioners herein have filed the present contempt petition. It is further mentioned that the Union of the workmen vide letter dated 25.11.2005 requested the Company to pay to 30 workmen a total sum of Rs. l,44,03,000/ -as consequential monetary benefits. The Company, however, vide its letter dated 25.11.2005 asked for medical fitness of the employees for taking them back to service. The Company also disputed the amount worked out by the petitioners as consequential monetary benefits. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, Dhanbad, who was approached by the workmen, asked both the parties to appear before him and for this purpose he held proceedings on two days ie. 3.2.2006 and 7.2.2006. The Company admitted its liability to pay Rs. 55 lacs approximately to the workmen; however, 30 workmen made their claim for Rs. l,67,07,614/ -. The Assistant Labour Commissioner, however, vide his order dated 3.2.2006 observed that it is not possible for him to commute the amount unless clear directions are received. It is further mentioned by opposite party Nos. 2 & 3 that petitioners should have approached under Section 33C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for calculation of the monetary benefits payable under the judgment but they chose not to do so. As regards the amount of Rs. 55 lacs offered by the Company is concerned, it is alleged that petitioners have refused to accept the same. It is also stated that during pendency of these proceedings petitioner No. 16 died and petitioner Nos. 4, 5, 7, 11, and 14 have attained the age of superannuation whereas petitioner Nos. 13 and 22 have been retained as Casual Workers. According to opposite parties, contempt proceedings are not maintainable for calculation of monetary benefits.;