Point of Law: The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely

JUDGMENT :

NIRZAR S. DESAI, J.

1. Present application is filed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 [herein after referred to as ‘the Act, 1971’ for short] with following prayers:

[A] The Hon’ble Court be pleased to punish Mr. Jayesh Hargovindbhai Patel, Executive Engineer or his successor in office i.e. respondent no.1, Mr.Shantibhai Patel, Deputy Executive Engineer or his successor in office i.e. respondent no.2 and Mr.Hargovindbhai Vankar Deputy Executive Engineer or his successor in office i.e. respondent no.3 for their willful disobedience of the order of the Hon’ble Court.

[B] Be pleased to declare that the respondents have intentionally flouted the order of competent court and direct the respondents to pay special cost and compensation to the applicants and further direct to pay all arrears of the salary of the applicant with 12% interest.

[C] Pending admission and final disposal of this case be pleased to direct the respondents to report full compliance of the order of the Hon’ble Court.

[D] Any other and further reliefs as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice be granted.

2. Heard Mr.N.K.Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicants and Mr.Dipak Aloria, learned advocate for the Respondent No.2 – Gujarat Water Supply and Suez Board [herein after referred to as ‘the respondent Board’, for short].

3. It is the case of the applicants that they were serving under Respondent No.2 board being appointed as daily wager in the year 1989 and 1990. The applicant no.1 was appointed on the post of Helper whereas the applicant no.2 was appointed as Electrician. Though the applicants had worked uninterruptedly for more than 10 years and were performing duties similar to regularly selected employees on a sanctioned posts, they were not paid the salary as per their entitlement at par with the persons who are appointed on a regular posts and, therefore, they were to be paid equally at par with the regular employees of the respondent Board. It was alleged that by adopting unfair labour practice, the respondent Board deprived them of their legitimate right of equal pay. Therefore, the applicants challenged the aforesaid action of the respondents before the Labour Court at Mehsana by way of Reference (LCMD) No.2 of 2008 [(Old No.7 of 1997)]. The learned Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Mahesana vide award dated 30.09.2015 partly allowed the said Reference and directed the respondent board to regularise the services of the workman (applicant no.1) with effect from 01.05.1999 on the post of Helper and to regularise the services of the workman (applicant no.2) with effect from 01.11.1990 on the post of Electrician and to grant consequential benefits of regular and permanent workman with effect from 01.01.2012 with clarification that the period from 01.05.1999 to 01.12.2012 be treated as notional period for the purpose of granting the benefits.

3.1 Aforesaid award was challenged before this Court by the respondent Board by way of filing Special Civil Application No.15382 of 2016. Said petition came to be rejected by this Court vide an order dated 17.07.2018.

4. Mr.Majmudar, learned advocate for the applicants submitted that vide order dated 17.07.2018 the petition preferred by the respondent board was dismissed, however, the order passed by the Labour Court, Mehsana dated 30.09.2015 in Reference (LCMD) has not been complied with and as such the action of the respondent authorities is contemptuous action and, therefore, present application is filed. He has urged that appropriate orders / directions be issued against the erring contemptnor respondents.

5. Mr.Dipak Aloria, learned advocate for the respondent Board submitted that the respondent authorities have complied with the order passed by the Labour Court, Mehsana which is confirmed by this Court by rejecting Special Civil Application No.15382 of 2016. Mr.Aloria, learned advocate submitted that respondents have complied with the orders as per the direction issued by t