JUDGMENT - V.C. DAGA, J.:---The petitioner herein is a registered trade union complaining breach of the order dated 3rd August, 1995 passed below Ex.C-2 by the Industrial Court at Bombay in Revision Application (U.L.P.) No. 98/1995; whereunder the respondents therein had agreed to pay wages to the workmen from 4th August, 1995 subject to the outcome of the revision. In lieu of this offer made, and accepted by Mr. Bhat, appearing for the respondents before the Industrial Court, a statement was made by the Counsel appearing for the workers union that the workers shall not report for work. This statement was taken on record by the Industrial Court. The same was also acted upon by the Court by admitting the revision petition for final hearing.

2. The petitioner union prayed for initiating action under the Contempt of Court Act against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 for flouting the above order of the Industrial Court emanating from the statement made on behalf of the respondents, (which ultimately calumniated in the order dated 3rd August, 1995). Thus the petitioner prays for action against respondent Nos. 1 to 3 ("the said respondents" for short) for having committed breach of the order dated 3rd August, 1995, passed by the Industrial Court, Mumbai.

BACKGROUND FACTS

3. The complaint was filed by the petitioner union under Item 1(a), (b) to (g) of Schedule IV of the Maharashtra Recognition of Trade Unions and Prevention of Unfair Labour Practices Act ("M.R.T.U. P.U.L.P. Act" for short) alleging therein that the respondents were engaged in Unfair Labour Practices on and from 4th March, 1992. The complaint was filed on behalf of 5 workers viz. Shri S. Kadam, S. Kalekar and M.S. Pawar, D. Shelke and V. Shelke, who were the workers of respondent No. 1 Company who had terminated the services of these 5 workers w.e.f. 4th March, 1992 without notice and/or justification and/or for any justified reasons. The complaint was tried by the Labour Court, Bombay on its own merits and came to be allowed vide judgment and order dated 5th April, 1995. The respondents were directed to reinstate the five workers, the members of the complainant union with continuity of service w.e.f. 4th March, 1992 without back wages within 2 months from the date of the order.

4. The above order was the subject matter of challenge before the Industrial Court, Mumbai in the revision petition referred to hereinabove. The application for interim relief was marked as Exh. C on the record of the Industrial Court. The Industrial Court after hearing the parties to the revision petition was pleaded to pass the following interim order on 3rd August, 1995.

"Heard Advocate Shri Jalota for the applicants. The Representative Shri Bhatt is present on behalf of the respondents. He strongly objects to the said revision. Advocate Shri N.B. Jalota has no objection to give wages to the workmen from 4-8-95, subject to the outcome of this revision to which Shri Bhatt has no objection. He is also making statement that workers will not report for work in the circumstances and hence, I pass the following order:

ORDER

The revision application is admitted.

The revision application be expeditiously heard on 24-8-95."

5. The said respondents failed to pay wages as per the undertaking incorporated in the above order. The petitioner union, therefore, by this petition moved for initiating action under the Contempt of Court Act and prayed for awarding punishment for having committed willful breach of the order of the Industrial Court referred to hereinabove.

6. The petition appears to have been filed on 19th December, 1996. The Rule came to be issued on 24th October, 1997. In reply to the Rule, counter affidavit filed by the respondents is on record containing justification for not obeying the order of the Industrial Court. In this view of the matter, the petition was heard finally.

RIVAL CONTENTIONS

7. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner contented that when Revision Application No. 91 of 1995 of the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document