The availability of an alternative remedy for execution of an award under the Industrial Disputes Act may render a contempt application not maintainable, especially when no specific time limit for compliance is set by the court.

ORDER :

BIREN VAISHNAV, J.

1.Mr.Vishal Thakkar learned advocate for the applicant in pressing for an order under the Contempt of Courts Act would rely on the decision of this Court in case of Jaisinh Jodhabhai Vaisya and Grofed Employees Union v. Laxmanbhai Arshibhai Zala reported in 2001 GLH (2) 68. It has been brought to the notice of this Court that a coordinate bench of this Court on 19.06.2023 considering the aforesaid decision, passed the following order:

“1. The present contempt application has been filed seeking the following prayers : -

“(A) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to initiate proceedings of contempt under The Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, against the respondents and be pleased to punish the respondents for committing civil contempt, in the interest of justice;

(B) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to declare that order passed by this Hon'ble Court in Special Civil Application 11670 of 2014 (Annexure A), be operated and executed, and any acts of the respondent may not confer any right in favour of the present applicant in any manner whatsoever, in the interest of justice and equity;

(C) YOUR LORDSHIPS may be pleased to pass directions to the respondent to regularize the services of the applicant herein, with all consequential benefits, which includes the arrears of salary from the date of entitlement of the benefits of regularization”

2. The applicant – original respondent No.1 of the captioned writ petition has filed the present application primarily seeking a prayer of implementation of the judgment and award dated 11.04.2014 passed by Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Bhavnagar in Reference (LCB) No.91 of 2008, which was assailed by the respondent – State authorities by way of the captioned writ petition. The Labour Court, Bhavnagar in the aforesaid reference, vide judgment and award dated 11.04.2014 had directed the respondent – State authorities to reinstate the applicant on his original post with continuity of service along with 30 % back wage. The respondent – State authorities assailed the same in the captioned writ petition, which was dismissed by the order dated 15.02.2023 by the learned Single Judge. Since the benefits of the award was not paid, the present applicant requested the respondent - State authorities to pay the same by his representation dated 07.03.2023. Since no benefits were paid arising from the judgment and award, the captioned contempt application has been filed by the present applicant – original respondent No.1. under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

3. Learned advocate Mr.Vishal Thakker, appearing for the applicant has submitted that the respondent - State authorities is bound to implement and grant the benefits accrued from the award dated dated 11.04.2014 passed by the Labour Court after the writ petition filed by the State authorities has been dismissed vide order dated 15.02.2023. It is submitted that the aforesaid action of not granting the benefits of the judgment and award, even after dismissal of the writ petition is contemptuous and hence, it is urged that the contempt proceedings may be initiated against the respondent authorities for not implementing the judgment and award passed by the Labour Court.

4. Per Contra, learned Assistant Government Pleader Mr.Gupta, appearing for the respondent - State authorities has submitted that the present contempt application is not maintainable as the applicant has an alternative efficacious remedy of execution of the award under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (I.D.Act). While placing reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India Vs. M/s. Oswal Woollen Mills Ltd., AIR 1984 SC 1264, it is submitted that since this Court in the order dated 15.02.2023 has not issued any specific directions with regard to time limit, in which, the award or order is to be complied with, the contempt application is not maintainable.

5. In response to the aforesaid submissions advanced by the learned AGP, learned advocate