MANJU SAXENA Vs. STAURT DAVIS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS contempt petition had been filed by Ms. Manju Saxena, who is the respondent in writ petition no. W.P.(C) No. 11344/2009, against three officers of the writ petitioner, Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Ltd.('the Bank' in short) under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for wilful disobedience of the order dated 03.09.2009 passed by this Court in the said writ petition which was filed against the award dated 01.06.2009 of the Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court(CGIT) directing the Bank to reinstate the petitioner herein with all consequential benefits including full back wages after the termination of her services by the Bank w.e.f. 01.10.2005 was found to be illegal. Vide order dated 03.09.2009 the operation of the impugned award was stayed subject to the petitioner bank depositing in Court the entire amount payable under the award. Since the bank did not make the full deposit, as per the petitioner, she filed this contempt petition.

(2.) THIS Court vide order dated 14.11.2011 decided to take cognizance, at first instance, only against the Bank and accordingly after directing its impleadment it was ordered to be served with a notice to show cause as to why it be not proceeded against for having committed contempt of Court. On being served with the show cause notice the Bank entered appearance and submitted its reply alleging that no contempt was committed by it.

(3.) ADMITTED before this Court on 22.10.2009 that she had already received a sum of eight lacs and accordingly the balance money was deposited in Court after adjusting the payment of eight lacs of rupees and, therefore, there remained no short fall in the deposit which the Bank was to make. Mr. Sandeep Sethi, learned senior counsel for the Bank, had contended that the petitioner herein had filed an LPA against the order dated 22.10.2009, wherein her admission of receipt of eight lacs was recorded, but that appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench. Mr. Sethi also submitted that the petitioner had not disclosed in this contempt application the admission which she had made before this Court regarding the receipt of payment of eight lacs of rupees and, in any event, Mr. Sethi further contended, the Bank could not be held guilty of Page 4 of 7 CONT. CAS (C) 743/2010 contempt of Court by not making the full deposit in Court in compliance of the conditional stay order passed by this Court on 03.09.2009 when operation of the impugned award of CGIT was stayed and at the most it could be said that there was no stay in operation and the petitioner's only remedy was to execute the award. In support of this submission Mr. Sethi cited one decision of the Supreme Court in the case of "Prithawal Nath vs State of Jharkhand", AIR 2004 Supreme Court 4277. Mr. Sethi also submitted that this application had simply been filed to blackmail the Bank and should be dismissed with exemplary costs so that the petitioner does not even think of filing such frivolous applications in future and also that she should be proceeded against for concealing material facts from this Court.