S PITCHUMANI Vs. K PALANISAMY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present application has been filed under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act alleging that there has been wilful and deliberate disobedience of the order dated 23. 7. 2002 in W. P. M. P. NOs. 17725 and 17726 of 2002 arising out of W. P. No. 1677 of 2001.

(2.) TO consider the question, it is necessary to notice the relevant facts and circumstances. The present applicant was working under the Mettur Chemicals Employees Co-operative Society of which contemnor was working as Special Officer. While the applicant was working as Assistant Secretary, the management had initiated a disciplinary proceeding. The Special Officer had imposed punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect and the period of suspension was directed to be treated as privilege leave. However, after applicant joined duty, the Secretary of the Society kept the order of the Special Officer in abeyance and for the self-same charge, imposed punishment of demotion as Clerk. At that stage, Industrial Dispute numbered as I. D. No. 4 of 1999 was initiated. The Labour Court by order dated 22. 11. 2000 passed an award holding that punishment of demotion was illegal and had directed that the applicant should be reinstated with full backwages, continuity of service and all other attendant benefits and on such reinstatement, such employee should be imposed with punishment of stoppage of one increment without cumulative effect as already directed by the Special Officer. Said award of the Labour Court was challenged by the Management in W. P. No. 1677 of 2001, which was was admitted on 30. 1. 2001. An application for stay numbered as WMP. No. 2290 of 2001 was filed. After hearing the counsel for both parties, the following order was passed by the learned single Judge on 4. 10. 2001 :-

(3.) FURTHER, since it is contended on behalf of the petitioner that the very charge which led to inflictment of punishment against the 2nd respondent was mishandling of funds, it is open to the petitioner not to entrust with the 2nd respondent any duties relating to handling of funds of the society.