DGU WORKERS UNION Vs. KISHU TEKCHANDANI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) .Writ petition No. 5026/1999 filed in this court was disposed of by an order dated l8th December, 2001 holding that the questions raised by the petitioner for consideration could be more appropriately decided in proceedings under the Industrial Disputes Act. A reference was, in that backdrop, made by the Central Govt. to the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court on 1st April, 2003 to determine whether the demand raised by the union for regularisation of the services of the employees named in the reference order was just, fair & legal and, if so, the relief that the workmen were entitled to. During the pendency of the proceedings before the Industrial Tribunal, the Cement Corporation of India, of which the respondents are the Chairman, General Manager and the Deputy Manager respectively, terminated the contract of the labour contractor and issued consequential directions restraining the members of the petitioner union from entering the factory premises. Aggrieved by the said order, WP(C) 990-1071/2004 were filed in this court in which it was inter-alia contended that while the proceedings were pending before the Industrial Tribunal, the Cement Corporation could not terminate the services of the employees working under it by treating them as employees of the labour contractor. Relying upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Steel Authority of India Limited and Others v. National Union Water Front Workers and Others, 2001 (7) SCG 1, a single bench of this court held that an equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to the petitioner by way of an application before the tribunal under Section 33 of the Labour Court concerned and that if such an application was moved the Labour Court could, upon appreciation of the available material, issue appropriate interim directions. The court also directed expeditious disposal of any such application if filed by the petitioner before it

(2.) . An application for an interim direction restraining the corporation from terminating the employment of the concerned employees was accordingly filed by the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court which was allowed by the said court in terms of an order dated 18th March, 2004 with the following direction:

(3.) In the present contempt petition, the petitioner's grievance is that the respondents have, despite expiry of 30 days from the date of the publication of the aforementioned order in the Government Gazette, declined to restore the services of the workmen and thereby committed contempt of the Industrial Tribunal-cum-Labour Court. Appropriate proceedings for punishing the respondents for the disobedience of the said orders need, therefore, be started according to the petitioner.