KEKI ARDESHIR MASTER Vs. A G KOTWAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these matters can be disposed of by one judgment as they arise out of the same subject-matter. By Criminal Application No. 339 of 1962 the Government Pleader has moved this Court that opponents Nos. 1 to 3, viz., Mr. S. K. Irani, an advocate practising in this Court, Mr. K. A. Master and Miss Master, have committed contempt of Court and action be taken against them under the Contempt of Courts Act and they be punished. Criminal Application No. 339 of 1962 has been made on the basis of a report made by Mr. A. G. Kotwal, 2nd Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Greater Bombay.

(2.) The facts in brief are:-Mr. K. A. Master, the second opponent to Criminal Application No. 339 of 1962 had filed an application (Application No. 4492 of 1959) against M/s Jeena & Co. before the Payment of Wages Authority claiming certain amount as wages. This application was placed for disposal before Mr. A. G. Kotwal, 2nd Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Bombay. It appears that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. On March 24, 1961, Mr. Kotwal after hearing the p ies condoned the delay in filing the said application. In due course a stage was reached for recording evidence, and August 17, 1961, was the date fixed for recording evidence. On that day some evidence was recorded and it appears that D. N. Salway, witness for Mr. Master, was in the witness-box by the end of the day. On the next day, i.e., August 18, 1961, an application was made by Mr. Master for time to file an application for declaring Salway as a hostile witness. The case was adjourned to August 22, 1961. On this day, Mr. Kotwal also inquired from the parties about the possibility of an amicable settlement of the case, and both the parties expressed their willingness to settle the matter. There was certain talk about the terms of the compromise. There was a suggestion that the amount of wages to be paid by M/s Jeena & Co. to Mr. Master should be left to Mr. Kotwal. There was also a demand on behalf of Mr. Master that not only he should get his wages but he should be reinstated in service. But to this demand of Mr. Master for reinstatement in service, M/s Jeena & Co. were not agreeable. On August 22, 1961, the parties informed Mr. Kotwal that the talks for settlement had broken down on the question of reinstatement. Mr. Irani, opponent No. 1 before us, who was appearing as counsel before the Payment of Wages Authority then asked for time to file an objection for declaring Salway as a hostile witness. Mr. Master was directed to file his objection before September 16, 1961, and the other side was directed to file its reply before November 13, 1961, and the ease was fixed for further hearing by mutual consent, on November 27, 28 and 29 and December 1,1961. Mr. Master, however, did not file the application by the ordered date, but on the other hand, from time to time, asked for further time. On November 4, 1961, the advocate for the parties saw Mr. Kotwal in his chamber, and Mr. Irani informed Mr, Kotwal that Mr. Master was not insisting on the term of reinstatement and, therefore, the settlement was likely because the parties were determined to settle all the disputes. The case was, therefore, first fixed on November 13 and then adjourned to November 27. We should have mentioned earlier that M/s Jeena & Co. were represented by M/s Gagrat & Co., solicitors, and two of their partners, Rustom Gagrat and Jehangir Gagrat, were appearing from time to time for M/s Jeena & Co. We should have also mentioned that Mr. Irani who was appearing as counsel for Mr. Master, is also Ms brother-in-law. Opponent No. 3 Miss Master is the sister of opponent No. 2 Mr. Master.

(3.) On November 27, 1961, the parties and their counsel appeared before Mr. Kotwal. Miss Master also was present in Court. Mr. Kotwal suggested to the parties to fix amicably the figure of compensation or wages payable to Mr. Master. There was discussion for some time between the parties, but no figure could be agreed to between them. Both the parties informed Mr. Kotwal that he should now fix the figure and neither party should higgle-haggle about it, Mr. Kotwal then asked the parties to address him on the question as to what amount should be paid to Mr. Master. The advocates for the parties accordingly addressed the Court. Mr. Kotwal then dictated the draft consent terms, leaving the quantum of amount blank. The parties and their advocates read the draft consent terms and approved it. Thereafter a fair draft of those consent terms was prepared leaving the quantum of amount blank. The fair draft was again read by counsel for parties and their advocates. Mr. Kotwal asked the advocates to sign, the consent terms in the fair draft. In the blank left on the fair draft Mr. Kotwal then wrote the figure of Rs. 4,173. The amount as fixed by Mr. Kotwal and written down in the consent terms was made known to the counsel and the parties who were present. The consent terms were then again, handed over to Mr. Kotwal who endorsed, them as accepted and signed. Thereafter Mr. Kotwal proceeded to make the endorsement in the roznama of the case. At this stage Miss Master started shouting and tried to snatch the copy of the consent terms from the Attorney of M/s Jeena & Co. She did not, however, succeed in her attempt. She then approached Mr. Kotwal and attempted to snatch the original consent terms from Mr. Kotwal. She told Mr. Kotwal in an angry tone, "This settlement is not acceptable to us". Mr. Kotwal told Mr. Irani, advocate for Mr. Master, that Miss Master was not concerned in the matter and unless she behaved herself, police would be called in. Thereupon Mr. Master requested his sister to leave the Court and eventually Mr. Master took her out of the Court. On November 28, 1961, Mr. Master filed an application in person before Mr. Kotwal stating therein that the consent terms were not binding on him and that his application under the Payment of Wages Act should be proceeded with on merits. A notice of this application was directed to be issued to M/s Jeena & Co. and the case was fixed for December 7, 1961.