In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh
...
COCP No. 1133 of 1996 O&M)
Date of decision: November 9, 2009
Sarup Singh .. Petitioner
Versus
ShriYash Pal Mahajan ..Respondent
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Garg
Present: Mr. Upender Prashar, Advocate
for the petitioner
Ms. Shivani Sharma, Advocate
for Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate
for the respondent
..
Rakesh Kumar Garg,J(Oral)
The present contempt petition had been filed by the petitioner for
alleged disobedience of the order dated 8.11.1994 passed in CWP No.3064 of
1994 whereby this Court disposed of the writ petition modifying the award of the
Labour Court to the extent that the workman shall be entitled to 50 % of the back
wages starting from 23.4.1987. The petitioner has alleged in the contempt
petition that the aforesaid order has not been complied with by the respondent.
On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent had inter alia argued that the petitioner has made a wrong statement
by misleading facts while filing this petition as the petitioner was gainfully
employed with the respondent-Housefed, Punjab on regular basis for the period
from 2.6.1986 up to 28.2.1987. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respondent had produced before this court a letter dated 28.2.1987 issued by
the Houefed, Punjab along with salary statement of the petitioner for the
aforementioned period.
Faced with the situation, learned counsel for the petitioner had
sought time to seek instructions from the petitioner. Vide order dated
23.10.2009, the petitioner was allowed to place on record his affidavit in which
the petitioner has admitted that during the period in question, he was working
with Housefed, Punjab. The only ground raised by him is that since the
respondent never came forward to comply with the orders passed by this court,
he was entitled to the difference of wages which has become due to the
petitioner from the respondent and the wages which the petitioner was receiving
from Housefed, Punjab and thus the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.
191842.52 from the respondent being the amount by which his wages in the
Housefed falls short of the wages to which the petitioner was entitled.
From the aforesaid stand taken, I find that petitioner has withheld a
material from fact from the knowledge of this court and made a wrong statement
by misleading fact by filing this petition as the petitioner was gainfully employed
with the respondent-Housefed, Punjab on regular basis.
Thus, I am not inclined to proceed further in this petition and the
same is hereby Dismissed.
Rule discharged.
However, the petitioner shall be at liberty to seek any other remedy
for redressal of his grievance in accordance with law.
November 9, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG)
nk JUDGE