BHARAT BHAI JIVABHAI PATEL Vs. P S BHATIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) As the common question whether these applications are maintainable in view of the fact that alternative efficacious remedy to make the other side obey the order is available, and in view of such provisions non-complying of the order can be said to be wilful and deliberate disobedience under the Contempt of Courts Act, is involved in both these petitions, they are disposed of by this common judgment.

(2.) MCA No. 353/93 is filed for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act, for non-compliance of the award dated 27.5.92 passed by Labour Court, Ahmedabad in T. Application No. 766/83. MCA No. 791/94 is filed for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act, against the respondent for non-compliance of the very order of the Labour Court referred in the earlier matter, but confirmed by this court in Spl. Civil Application No. 5468/93.

(3.) Labour court has ordered for reinstatement with continuity of service and back wages under the provisions of Bombay Industrial Relations Act, 1946, but there is a specific provision for taking penal action under sec. 106 of the said Act, for non-compliance of the order. Non-compliance of the order is in view of sec. 46 of the Bombay Industrial Relations Act. Sec. 46 refers to illegal change and it is clear from sub-sec. (5) that failure to carry out the terms of any settlement, award, registered agreement or effective order or decision of a Wage Board, a Labour Court or the Industrial Court affecting industrial matters, shall be deemed to be an illegal change. Thus, for making illegal change, there is a penal provision under sec. 106. Thus, in our opinion, there is an alternative, efficacious and prompt remedy. The remedy under sec. 106 is more efficacious, in our view, as it provides for an imprisonment for three months and a fine of Rs. 5000- every day, on which the contravention continues. Thus, in view of this alternative remedy, we would not like to exercise our powers under the Contempt of Courts Act.