Contempt – Contempt jurisdiction – Invocation of – On facts, in a industrial dispute, order passed by the Supreme Court that as and when any vacancy arises on daily wages/muster roll, the preference to be given to terminated/retrenched employee of the department – Contempt petition by the former employees against the department that they were not reinstated and regularized against the vacant posts – Held: Special Leave Petitions were disposed of in the light of circular which contemplates that the retrenched employees will be re-engaged in case any requirement arises and in order of seniority – There was no direction to reinstate the petitioners or to place them in minimum or regular pay scale – Contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of impressions, when the order of the Court does not contain any direction for reinstatement or for grant of regular pay scale – Contempt would be made out when there is wilful disobedience to the orders of this Court – Since the Order of this Court is not of reinstatement, the petitioners under the garb of the contempt petition cannot seek reinstatement, when nothing was granted by this Court – Thus, the department have not violated any order passed by this Court – U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 6Q.
Dismissing the Contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The petitioners cannot claim any grievance of not engaging them in pursuance of the order passed by this Court when this Court has disposed of the Special Leave Petitions in the light of circular dated 07.04.2015 which contemplates that the retrenched employees will be re-engaged in case any requirement arises and in order of seniority. Therefore, it cannot be said that the respondents have violated any order passed by this Court. [Para 26][234-G-H]
1.2 The circular dated 07.04.2015 is in terms of the mandate of Section 6Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to maintain a list of retrenched workmen to be engaged as and when the necessity arises. The Order of this Court dated 07.09.2015 has been passed on the basis of concession given on behalf of the workmen in light of the circular dated 07.04.2015. There was no order of this Court to re-engage the workmen who were parties in the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, in the absence of any specific and categorical direction of reinstatement, the petitioners cannot claim any right for reinstatement on the basis of the orders passed by this Court on 07.09.2015. Furthermore, the petitioners were not party in the group of Special Leave Petitions decided on 07.09.2015. The Order of this Court is to take workmen on daily wage basis as per office order dated 07.04.2015. The submission of the petitioner that they accepted the order under the impression that the workmen are being reinstated cannot be accepted as the order dated 07.09.2015 has been passed on the basis of the circular which contemplates that the workmen shall be reinstated as per the seniority list as and when requirement in future arises. [Paras 18-20][232-E-H; 233-A]
1.3 The argument that 550 Group D posts are available against which petitioners may be appointed is not tenable. The Group D posts are required to be filled on the basis of qualifications prescribed for filling up of such posts in the Rules as may be applicable to make appointments to such posts. The petitioners, if eligible, can compete for such appointments. But merely they were once engaged on muster roll, they cannot have right to seek regular appointment against Group D posts dehors the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Rules. The regular appointment can be made keeping in view the principles of public appointment which is by issuance of an advertisement giving opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and to consider their suitability for the posts in non-discriminatory manner. The petitioners appointed on muster roll basis cannot claim regular appointment against the vacant Group D posts when the Award of the Labour Court was of reinstatement and not that of regular appointment. [Para 21][233-D-H]
1.4 There is no direction in the order passed by this Court to reinstate the petitioners or to place them in minimum or regular pay scale. The contempt jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of impressions, when the order of the Court does not contain any direction for reinstatement or for grant of regular pay scale. The contempt would be made out when there is wilful disobedience to the orders of this Court. Since the Order of this Court is not of reinstatement, the petitioners under the garb of the contempt petition cannot seek reinstatement, when no such relief was granted by this Court. [Para 25][234-E-F]
State of Punjab & Others v. Jagjit Singh & Others (2017) 1 SCC 148 : [2016] 7 SCR 350 – held
inapplicable.
State of Punjab v. Surjit Singh (2009) 9 SCC 514 : [2009] 12 SCR 394; Sabha Shanker Dube v. Divisional Forest Officer & Others 2018 (14) SCALE 765; RBI v. S. Mani (2005) 5 SCC 100 : [2005] 2 SCR 797 – referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.