ASHOK HOTEL MAZDOOR JANTA UNION Vs. VIJAY DUTT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application, filed on behalf of the respondent in the Cont. Cas(C) 526/2017 seeks modification of the order dated 29th October, 2018. 2. Cont. Cas(C) 526/2017, preferred by the petitioner-Union alleged contumacious disobedience by the respondentcontemnor, of order dated 27th March, 2012, passed by this Court, which reads as under 1. This contempt petition alleges contumacious infraction, by the respondent-contemnor, of order dated 27th March, 2012, passed by this Court. The operative portion of the said order reads thus Considering all the facts and circumstances, the petitioner-management is directed to pay to the workers involved in this case wages @ Rs. 15,000/- per month, which shall be subject to the final outcome of the writ petition and further subject to the workmen given an undertaking to this Court in writing that they shall refund the amount over and above the minimum wages which they are getting to the management in case its writ petition is allowed. This undertaking shall be furnished by them within three weeks and thereafter petitioner shall make the payment of wages @ Rs. 15,000- per month, as directed aforesaid, from the date of filing of the writ petition till its disposal. The arrears upto March 2012 shall be cleared within four weeks and further payments shall be made on or before 10th day of each succeeding month. This application stands disposed of accordingly.

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has four grievances, insofar as compliance with the directions contained in the afore- extracted para is concerned, viz., (i) that payment, as made to his client, has been calculated from February, 2010, whereas the writ petition was filed in December, 2009, so that the payment fell short by two months; (ii) that the payment is being made partly by the contractor and partly by the respondent; (iii) that the provident fund is being deducted while making the said payment and (iv) that his client is not being paid overtime allowance. It is trite that contempt proceedings cannot be used as a vehicle to secure more than is granted by the order, of which contempt is urged. Mr. Sikri, learned Senior counsel for the respondent, candidly acknowledges that there may be a calculation error in the quantum of wages, which had been reckoned from February, 2010, instead of December, 2009, which was the date of filing of the writ petition. He undertakes to ensure that the differential wages for the period December, 2009 to February, 2010 would be disbursed to the petitioner within a period of three weeks. Insofar as the remaining benefits of the petitioner are concerned, I am of the view that, once the petitioner secures the payment of wages, as granted by this Court, commencing December, 2009, no further proceedings for contempt would lie. As such, subject to the respondent making payment of the differential wages, for the period December, 2009 to February, 2010, to the petitioner, within a period of six weeks from today, this contempt petition would stand disposed of. Needless to say, the petitioner would be at liberty to urge any other reservations, which he may have, regarding the amount to be made, by way of a separate writ petition, which would be decided on its own merits.

(3.) The aforesaid Contempt Petition was disposed of, by me, vide order dated 29th October, 2018. It was noted that the grievance of the petitioner, in the Contempt Petition, insofar as compliance with the directions issued by this Court on 27th March, 2012, was concerned, was, (i) that payment, as made to his client, had been calculated from February, 2010, whereas the writ petition was filed in December, 2009, so that the payment fell short by two months; (ii) that the payment was being made partly by the contractor and partly by the respondent; (iii) that the provident fund was being deducted while making the said payment and (iv) that his client was not being paid overtime allowance.