MOHIT ELECTRONICS Vs. WORKMAN TAHIR HUSSAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment/order dated 18.01.2012 passed by a learned Single Judge of this court in CM No. 21618/2010 and WP(C) No. 6284/2004 whereby the writ petition of the appellant herein was dismissed on the ground that there was non-compliance of an order passed under Sec. 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 inasmuch as the allegation was that the appellant had not complied with the said order by not paying wages to the respondent from Aug. 2008 onwards. By virtue of the impugned order contempt proceedings were also initiated and the appellant's proprietor Mr Ravinder Kumar who was present in court on the date on which the impugned order was passed was directed to show cause as to why he be not proceeded against for having committed contempt of court.

(2.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that non-compliance of an order passed under Sec. 17B of the said Act could not, ipso facto, lead to dismissal of the writ petition and, secondly, contempt proceedings could also not be initiated inasmuch as the respondent had the remedy under Sec. 33C(2) of the said Act. The learned counsel also drew our attention to that part of the order where his submission had been recorded. The said portion reads as under:-

(3.) The learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the submissions made by him before the learned Single Judge were that the writ petition could be dismissed and contempt proceedings could be initiated if the noncompliance was intentional and or willful. Without going into the question of whether the non-compliance was intentional and/or willful, the court could not, simply because there was non-compliance, dismiss the writ petition and initiate contempt proceedings. We note from the order in appeal that while this submission of the learned counsel for the appellant was recorded, there is no finding returned by the learned Single Judge as to whether the non-compliance was intentional and willful or not. Despite the fact that there is no such finding, the learned Single Judge went on to dismiss the writ petition and also initiate contempt proceedings against the proprietor of the appellant. This, in our view, was an error.