Court No. - 3
Case :- CONTEMPT No. - 132 of 2008
Petitioner :- Rajat Ram & 4 Ors.
Respondent :- Sri Udai Bhan Pandey & 4 Ors.
Petitioner Counsel :- Himanshu Raghave,A.K. Tiwari
Respondent Counsel :- Sanchit S. Asthana
Hon'ble Shri Narayan Shukla,J.
Petitioners claim the disobedience of order dated 8.8.2000 passed by
this Court in writ petition 803 (M/S) of 1997 along with other connected
writ petition no. 804 (M/S) of 1997, the operative portion of the order is
reproduced hereinunder:-
“Normally the matter should have been remanded to the Labour Court
after setting aside the same for the purpose of granting relief in view of
observations made above, but since the matter is quite old and the
workmen after their retrenchment in the year 1979 approached the
Labour Court after a delay of eleven years and five years were taken in
deciding the matter by the Labour Court, I deem it proper that a
direction be issued to the petitioner and the award shall stand modified
to that extent. The workmen shall not be entitled to the wages as
awarded by the Labour Court.
The petitioner is directed to consider the case of such employees who
have been held to be retrenched employee by the impugned order of
the Labour Court, Faizabad, in accordance with the provisions of
section 6-A of the U.P. Industrial disputes Act, on any existing
vacancies or the vacancies which may occur in the future within a
period of four months from the date the certified copy of this order is
produced before the authority concerned. Both the writ petitions are
disposed of accordingly.”
The petitioners claim that after the order passed by the writ court the
opposite parties have proceeded to absorb the retrenched employees
excluding the petitioners, whereas the stand of Mr. Jaideep Narain
Mathur, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Sanchit Asthana,
learned counsel for the Corporation is that the Corporation has
proceeded to make absorption of only the reserved category
candidates; whereas the petitioners belong to general category
candidate and for general category candidates he submits that as per
terms of the order passed by the writ court as and when the opposite
parties proceed to appoint, they shall consider the case of the
retrenched employees under the provisions of Section 6-Q of the U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, without keeping any reservation.
Though by pointing out the list as well as the names of the candidates,
the learned counsel for the petitioners tried very much to establish the
absorption of the candidates in violation of order passed by the writ
court, but this Court at this stage does not appreciate the same as
upon perusal of the record I find a clear stand of the Corporation that
nobody of the general category has been absorbed. On asking as to
how the opposite parties shall implement the order passed by the writ
court and whether they have any clear stand of absorption of the
petitioners or not, it is submitted by Mr. Mathur, learned Senior
Advocate in the form of undertaking that when the Corporation
proceeds for extending the employment to any person, the petitioners
who are the retrenched employee shall be considered for providing
employment under their respective categories without any excuse in
terms of the order passed by the writ court. I hope that the Corporation
shall follow its undertaking.
Keeping in view the submissions of the learned counsel for the
petitioners that there may be hide and seek on the part of the
Corporation in the proceeding adopted by the Corporation for
employment, it is stated by Mr. Mathur that vacancies shall be
advertised to public at large through leading two daily newspapers- one
in Hindi and other in English by inviting the applications from eligible
candidates including the petitioners, in which the petitioners shall have
chance to apply and if they apply, they shall be considered for
appointment.
In the light of the aforesaid submissions made by the learned counsels
for the parties I do not find disobedience of the order passed by writ
court on the part of the opposite parties. Therefore, I hereby dismiss
the contempt petition and discharge the notices.
Order Date :- 9.8.2010
GSY