( 1 ) THE petitioner has approached this Court by filing this application under the provisions contained in the Contempt of Courts Act, inter alia alleging that the respondent-Divisional Controller, Gujarat State Road Transport corporation has not carried out the direction as per the award pronounced by the labour Court on 10-11-1994 in reference (LCN) 496 of 1989. The competent authority under the provisions contained in the Industrial Disputes Act made a reference to the Labour Court on 6-11-1989 raising industrial dispute under Sec. 10 (1) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the petitioner herein alleged that he is relieved illegally on 22-9-19~7. On appreciation of the material placed before the Labour Court the direction was given,to reinstate the petitioner herein. It was also directed that the petitioner should be paid 25% of the wages which otherwise he would have been entitled, if he was on duty

( 2 ) THIS Division Bench has, in the judgment passed on 2/08/1995 in miscellaneous Civil Application No. 1411 of 1991 (reported in J. A. Goraswa v. D. I. G. and I. G. P. , Gujarat State, 1995 (2) GLR 1666) in Spl. C. A. No. 4009 of 1991, relying on the decision of Calcutta High Court in the case of Tarafatulla Mandal v. S. N. Maitra, reported in AIR 1952 Cal 919, held that a proceeding in contempt is by its nature a proceeding in personam and, therefore, name of the individual is required to be given who is alleged to have disobeyed the directions of the Court and there must be a specific pleading as to how that individual was responsible for carrying out the orders or direction of the Court. It is again made clear that we do not say that at no stage, a State or Corporation cannot be a party in a contempt application. In addition to the individual, the presence of the State or the Corporation etc. would be useful in identifying the individual officer concerned who should be charged for contempt. A contempt proceedings cannot be proceeded with in the absence of an individual person being a party as contemner, who is required to be charged of the alleged act. In the instant case, neither the name of the contemner is given nor are there any specific pleadings as to how contempt is committed. For this reason also, this petition is required to be rejected.

( 3 ) THE petitioner in his petition has referred to a reported decision of this Court in the case of (Shri) Bipinchandra B. Singwala v. Navin Flourine Industries and Anr. , reported in 1981, GLH 259 : (1981 GLR 1070), in the support of contentions. The division Bench of this Court on the contrary has observed as under in para 4 :" We have no supervisory, control over the Labour Court. Even if we had supervisory control we would not be in a position to direct the Labour Court to dispose of the matter within a specified time because the Courts are flooded with work as is well-known. Besides, the power of the High Court under the Contempt of Courts act does nor depend on whether or not the petitioner can make an approach to the labour Court or can file Civil suit or apply for the execution of the award through the Collector by way of Recovery Application. Though under the circumstances, we do not hold respondents guilty of contempt for their failure to comply with the award so far and punish them. "

( 4 ) THE Court after coming to the conclusion as aforesaid with a view to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to see that parties are not obliged to incur avoidable expenditure, Court directed the respondents in that case to pay petitioner back wages within the time stipulated as mentioned in para 5 of the judgment.

( 5 ) DIVISION Bench of this Court, in the case of Vadodara Mazdoor Congress v. Indian Oil Corporation, reported in 1995 (2) GLR 971, has taken a view that the jurisdiction of the Court should not be invoked when there is an alternative remedy available to a workman to approach Industrial Forum under Sec. 33c of the industrial Disputes Act.

( 6 ) WE are