IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt jurisdiction is attracted only in case of willful disobedience. Cannot be invoked on basis of impressions.

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