( 1 ) AN employee whose service was terminated on 14/08/1975 raised in industrial dispute which was referred to tee Labour Court at Surat under secs. 9 and 10 (1) (c) of the Industrial Disputes Act 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for adjudication in accordance with law. By an Award dated 8/10/1979 Annexure XX the Presiding Officer? Labour Court Surat ordered reinstatement (with backwages) of the employee concerned. The employee has approached this Court by way of an application under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971 for punishing the employer Company and its Manager respondents nos. 1 and 2 herein for wilful noncompliance with the directions given by the Labour Court. The respondents have contended that there exists a dispute in regard to the interpretation of the directions issued by the Labour Court as regards the basis on which the backwages were to be computed. And that is why the petitioner was asked by them to make recourse to sec. 36a of the Act and that instead of doing so the petitioner had approached the High Court by way of the present petition which according to them was not maintainable.

( 2 ) IN order to understand the dispute a few facts require to be stated. The petitioner was initially appointed as an apprentice Assistant Chemist on 20/12/1973 On Dece 19/12/1974 he completed one year of service as an Apprentice Assistant Chemist. Some eight months later on 14/08/1975 his service was terminated by an oral order without holding any inquiry. The dispute in the Labour Court arose in the background of these facts. The Presiding Officer Labour Court Surat in para 12 of his Judgment in clear terms recorded a finding in favour of the employee and concluded that he had become a permanent employee of the respondent company by force of law on the lapse of one year after the date of his initial appointment under order Ex. 11 whereby he was appointed. The relevant portion from the Award may be reproduced for the sake of preciseness:. . . . THIS model Standing Order 3 (2) cannot be committed breach of by the first party and after period of one year the second party cannot be treated as an apprentice. and therefore clearly in my opinion the second party became permanent servant by force of law after lapse of one year after the date of his initial appointment under order Exh. 11. (Emphasis Supplied)IT is therefore clear that according to the Labour Court the petitioner became a permanent employee with effect from 19/12/1974 which is the date on which the period of one year elapsed after the date of his initial appointment as per Ex. 11. In the wake of the aforesaid finding the Labour Court directed the respondents to reinstate the petitioner with backwages. The Labour Court observed in para 14 of its Award as under:. . . . HENCE I order that the second party should be reinstated by the first party in service with continuity and paid backwages from 14-8-1975 upto date of actual reinstatement and paid Rs. 100. 00 by way of costs. The first party shall implement this order within one month of its publication. (underlines added)

( 3 ) THE Award must be read as a whole in a harmonious fashion. If this is done it is abundantly clear that the Labour Court has directed reinstatement of the petitioner with backwages from 14/08/1975 with continuity of service on the footing that the petitioner became a permanent employee on 20/12/1974 In other words the obligation of the respondents under the Award was1 To treat the oral order of termination dated 14/08/1975 as nonest. 2 To treat the petitioner as having continued in service throughout without break as if the order of termination dated 14/08/1975 was nonexistent. 3 To treat the petitioner as an employee who had become permanent with effect from 20/12/19744 To pay him backwages on the aforesaid basis. 5 To give him a posting. The petitioner has already been reported. The only dispute which has given rise to the controversy is as regards the computation of the ba