1. Retrenched daily wagers seeking reinstatement and regularization via contempt petitions following an order to give preference to retrenched employees for future vacancies under the Industrial Disputes Act. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 )
Back
Next 
2019 Supreme(SC) 7
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY AND ORS. – PETITIONERS
VERSUS
RAJESH MITTAL AND ORS. – RESPONDENTS
CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO.817 OF 2018 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 309 OF 2016 IN S.L.P (C) NO. 4470 OF 2014 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1290/2018 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 860/2016 IN S.L.P (C) NO. 3540/2015 WITH CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 1291/2018 IN CONTEMPT PETITION (C) NO. 861/2016 IN S.L.P (C) NO. 3542/2015
Decided On : 04-01-2019
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt jurisdiction is attracted only in case of willful disobedience. Cannot be invoked on basis of impressions.
Contempt jurisdiction is attracted only in case of willful disobedience. Cannot be invoked on basis of impressions.
Subject
Contempt of Court - Non-Compliance with Court Order
Act Referred
Headnote
(a) Constitution of India – Article 215 – Contempt jurisdiction – Attracted only in case of willful disobedience – Cannot be invoked on basis of impressions – Court not ordering reinstatement in its order – Petitioners cannot seek reinstatement under the garb of the contempt petition. (Para 25)
(b) Section 6Q – Reengagement of retrenched employees – Circular of Jal Nigam dated 07.04.2015 – In terms of mandate of section 6Q – Instantly, Jal Nigam maintaining list of retrenched employees – After advertisement appointing 32 employees in order of seniority – Court passing order on 07.09.2015 on basis of circular dated 07.04.2015 – No order to re-engage petitioners – No willful disobedience. (Para 18, 19, 25, 26)
(2005) 5 SCC 100 – Relied upon
(2009) 9 SCC 514; (2017) 1 SCC 148; 2018 (14) Scale 765 – Distinguished
Facts of the case:
U.P. Jal Nigam Construction Division has engaged workmen in the category of Runner, Beldar and Lab Assistants prior to 1991. The services of the workmen engaged or appointed after 31.3.1989 were retrenched on 22nd June, 1991 or so in terms of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The Writ Petition No. 5686 of 1991 challenging such order of termination was dismissed.
However it was observed that since the petitioners had discharged duty for about three years, it shall be appropriate for U.P. Jal Nigam to give preference to the petitioners while making any fresh selection or appointment for the post of daily wager or work charge employee or muster roll in future vacancies.
Finding of the Court:
There is no willful disobedience.
Result: Contempt petition dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. B.N.P. Pathak, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
For Petitioner(s): Mr. Prashant Bhushan, AOR Mr. Pankaj Kumar Singh, Adv. Dr. Vinod Kumar Tewari, AOR Mr. B.N.P. Pathak, Adv.
For Respondent(s): Ms. Vanshaja Shukla, AOR
Table of Contents
2. Petitioners claim right to reinstatement against vacant posts and equal pay; respondents assert compliance with preference rules and lack of daily-wage vacancies. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 )
3. The court found the preference circular aligned with statutory mandates and that reinstatement of retrenched workmen restores only their previous status, not regular appointment or pay scales. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 )
4. Reinstatement of retrenched workmen restores the status held at termination; it does not grant a right to regular appointment or equal pay for equal work. (Para 22 , 23 )
5. Contempt petitions dismissed and rule discharged. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 )
6. What is the legal requirement for re-employing retrenched workmen under the Industrial Disputes Act?
Under Section 6Q, if an employer proposes to employ other persons after retrenchment, they must give retrenched workmen an opportunity to offer themselves for re-employment, and such workmen shall have preference over other persons. (Para 17 , 18 )
7. Does a direction for reinstatement of a retrenched workman entitle them to regular appointment or a regular pay scale?
No. Reinstatement for non-compliance with retrenchment provisions restores the workman to the same status and terms they held when terminated, rather than granting a regular appointment or a regular pay scale. (Para 22 , 23 )
8. Can workers previously engaged on a muster roll claim regular appointment to vacant Group D posts?
No. Regular appointments must follow public appointment principles, including prescribed qualifications and open advertisement. Prior muster roll engagement does not grant a right to regular appointment regardless of eligibility. (Para 21 )
9. Can contempt proceedings be initiated based on the impression that a court order implied a certain direction?
No. Contempt jurisdiction requires wilful disobedience of specific and categorical directions. It cannot be invoked based on impressions when the court's order does not contain a specific direction for the relief sought. (Para 20 , 25 )
JUDGMENT
Hemant Gupta, J.
The present Contempt Petitions arise out of an order passed by this Court on 07.09.2015 which reads as under:-
“It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it has decided to take the respondents-workmen on daily wage basis as per the office order dated 07.04.2015 and list contained therein. Needless to say, the names of the respondents-workmen are included in the list contained in office order dated 07.04.2015 which has been filed before this Court. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that as the names of the respondents-workmen are included in the list as per the aforesaid office order, they have no grievance. Recording such concession, the special leave petitions stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”
2. Earlier Contempt Petitions filed before this Court alleging non-compliance of the said order were disposed of on 11.01.2017 in view of the fact that the name of respondents-workmen has already been included in the seniority list.
3. The background leading to the present contempt petitions is that U.P. Jal Nigam Construction Division (Jal Nigam in short) has engaged workmen in the category of Runner, Beldar and Lab Assistants prior to 1991. The services of the workmen engaged or appointed after 31.3.1989 were retrenched on 22nd June, 1991 or so in terms of Section 6N of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (Act in short). The Writ Petition No. 5686 of 1991 challenging such order of termination was decided on 5.11.2009, when the following order was passed:-
“3. Petitioners were engaged as daily wager in the U.P. Jal Nigam sometime in the year 1989 on various dates facing retrenchment of their services in pursuance to decision taken by the Board. U.P. Jal Nigam took a decision and had issued a circular that all the persons appointed after 31.8.1989 shall be retrenched after serving a month notice and payment of salary. Accordingly, in pursuance to decision taken by the Board petitioner's services have been terminated after payment of one month salary. Cut off date fixed by the Jal Nigam has been impugned in the present writ petition.
4. In a recent judgement reported in JT 2009 (9) SC 229, A.Manjula Bhashini and others Vs. The M.D., A.P. Women Coop. Finance Corp. Ltd. their Lordship of Hon'ble Supreme Court held that ordinarily fixing of cut of date can not be held arbitrary unless it suffers from want of jurisdiction or violative of certain statutory provisions or constitutional mandate.
5. In the present case, nothing has been brought on record to indicate that cut off date fixed by the Jal Nigam suffers from any illegality or violative of fundamental right available to the petitioner. Initially an interim order was passed by this court but Hon'ble Supreme Court while decidingSpecial Leave Petition against the said interim order had set aside the same and permitted the Jal Nigam to proceed at its end.
6. In view of above, there appears to be no substantial illegality in the impugned order passed by the Jal Nigam divesting the petitioner from service. However, since the petitioners had discharged duty for about three years, it shall be appropriate for U.P. Jal Nigam to give preference to the petitioners while making any fresh selection or appointment for the post of daily wager or work charge employee or muster roll in future vacancies.”
4. The petitioner No.1 raised an industrial dispute which was referred to Labour Court, Mirzapur. The learned Labour Court ordered to pay compensation of Rs. 25,000/-and Rs. 2,000/-as litigation expenses in its Award dated 04.02.2009. The Award of the Labour Court notices a fact that the services of the workman was engaged on 1.4.1990 and terminated on 22.6.1991. It also noticed that the order of termination was stayed on 20.5.1991 in Writ Petition No. 18124 of 1991 but after the decision of the said writ petition, the services of the workman was terminated in 1994.
5. Such Award was challenged by the first petitioner by fili
