PWD Vs. S. B. VASAVA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Shri Shalin Mehta, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the complainant and Ms. Manisha Lavkumar Shah, learned Government Pleader appearing for the respondents. Perused the records. The direction which is alleged to have been violated and have given rise to initiate the contempt proceedings reads thus :-

(2.) A plain reading of the above order would clearly indicate that the respondents were directed to pay the complainant an amount towards the "encashment of public holidays" and "transport allowance" as per computation and calculation made and which was available even as on the date of the order passed by the Court on 14/10/2011 with simple interest @ 6% per annum. It is not in dispute that the amount so quantified has been ordered to be paid, however, the short issue would be as to whether a sum of Rs.25.00 lakhs could have been disbursed to the Union? The scope of this contempt proceedings is limited or will have to be examined within the four corners of as to whether the order has been complied or not. Undisputedly, the order or direction, which has been issued on 14/10/2011, states that the petitioner/s namely, 288 employees are entitled to the allowance of 'encashment of public holidays' and 'transport allowance' as per the calculation made, which has been since determined inclusive of interest and out of the amount paid, Rs.25.00 lakhs has been deducted. This would not be within the scope of this contempt proceedings or in the realm of this contempt proceedings. If the petitioners are aggrieved by the said deduction or payment made, they would at liberty to challenge the same in the manner known to law. It is also on record that the further affidavit filed by the contemner would disclose that in a joint meeting held by the department as well as the officers and office bearers of the Union on 14/12/2021, it has been resolved that the books of accounts were produced and by consent given by the Union, the said amount has been paid to the Union. Hence, as to whether the said amount could have been paid or not is an issue which will have to be canvassed by the petitioners/ applicants in appropriate forum. Hence, without expressing any opinion on said issue, the contempt proceedings stands dropped.