SHAILESH KUMAR SAHU Vs. AMITABH JAIN SECRETARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These contempt petitions have been filed by individual workman against the officers of the State alleging willful disobedience of orders passed in their respective cases whereby the order of stay of reinstatement, passed earlier in the petitions filed by the State was vacated.

(2.) Learned counsel for the applicant would submit that against the award of reinstatement passed in favour of individual applicants in their respective petitions, the State had preferred separate petitions challenging the awards. Initially, an interim order of stay of reinstatement was passed by this Court. However, later on it was brought to the notice of the Court by the workmen that on the date when the writ petitioner filed petition and made prayer for interim relief, workmen were already reinstated. Upon this disclosure, the interim orders passed earlier in all the cases were vacated. Further submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in view of the observations that reinstatement would be subject to final outcome of the petition, upon vacating interim order, the representation was under an obligation to immediately reinstate each of the workmen without insisting on filing any kind of affidavit which has been done in the present case. He would submit that the last drawn wages ought to be immediately paid without insisting on filing the affidavit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the State, on the other hand, appearing for officers who is also present in the Court would submit that there was no intention to flout any order of the Court. He would submit that officers on his own understanding of the provision contained in Section 17(B) Industrial Dispute Act, issued letters only to fecilitate payment of wages. In any case, it is argued, unless there is specific direction by the Court, it cannot be said that vacating of stay would oblige Respondent authority to reinstate the employee where the award is executable.