The court upheld that willful non-compliance with judicial orders leads to dismissal of petitions, reinforcing obligations to follow Tribunal directives in employment matters.

Milind N. Jadhav, J.

1. Heard Mr. Rawool, learned Advocate for Petitioners, Mr. Sadasivan, learned Advocate for Respondent No.1 and Ms. Gavhane, learned AGP for Respondent – State.

2. The present Writ Petition assails judgment and order dated 22.06.2022 passed by the Presiding Officer, Mumbai University and College Tribunal, Mumbai in Contempt Application No.05 of 2019 whereby Contempt Application filed by Respondent No.1 was partly allowed.

3. The facts germane to the present case are as follows:-

3.1. On 04.08.2014, Respondent No.1 – employee was appointed as Workshop Welder (Instructor) in Petitioner No.3 – Institute. On account of alleged unsatisfactory work and misconduct Petitioners issued show-cause notices dated 11.09.2015 and 22.03.2018. Thereafter, by letter dated 05.05.2018 Respondent No.1’s services were terminated and all dues payable to him as on that date were paid by Petitioners.

3.2. Being aggrieved by the termination, Respondent No.1 preferred Appeal No.19 of 2018 before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal, Mumbai. By judgment dated 15.03.2019, Tribunal allowed the Appeal and directed Respondent No.1 to be reinstated to the same post without any break in service alongwith back-wages and costs of Rs.20,000/-.

3.3. It is Petitioners’ case that Respondent No.1’s services were unsatisfactory and efforts were made to settle the dispute. Despite such attempts, Respondent No.1 filed Contempt Application No.02 of 2019 alleging non-compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 15.03.2019. In the contempt proceedings Petitioners paid Rs.97,693/- towards back-wages and Rs.20,000/- towards costs as directed by order dated 15.03.2019. By order dated 11.07.2019, Contempt Application No.02 of 2019 was disposed of with directions to comply with the order dated 15.03.2019.

3.4. It is Petitioners’ case that on 12.07.2019, Respondent No.1 reported for duty, submitted his reporting letter and signed the muster roll, however he refused to perform the duties assigned to him and declined to attend Diploma College duty. Thereafter, Petitioner No.2 addressed a letter dated 13.07.2019 to Respondent No.1 and addressed letters and emails calling upon him to join duties however he did not resume despite such communications. All these facts are vehemently denied by Respondent No.1

3.5. Respondent No.1 subsequently filed 2^nd Contempt Application No.05 of 2019 alleging continued non-compliance with Tribunal’s order dated 15.03.2019, wherein Tribunal once again directed Petitioners to issue a letter of reinstatement dated 06.04.2022, directing Respondent No.1 to join duty from 07.04.2022. Pursuant thereto, Respondent No.1 joined duty and was assigned industrial visits for two days. In the interregnum, Petitioners informed him about joining formalities to be completed, but according to Petitioner Respondent No.1 refused to cooperate and sign the documents which further led to a dispute between Petitioners and Respondent No.1 due to which Petitioners served show-cause notice dated 07.04.2022, calling upon Respondent No.1 to show cause why disciplinary action should not be initiated against him. Respondent No.1 failed to remain present for hearing on 08.04.2022 and did not undertake the industrial visit duty assigned to him and continued to remain absent thereafter.

3.6. In Contempt Application No.05 of 2019, Respondent No.1 filed Affidavit dated 23.04.2022 recording the reinstatement and the show-cause notice proceedings dated 07.04.2022. He also filed Application for initiation of enquiry under Section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against Petitioners. Petitioners