KEKI ARDESHIR MASTER Vs. KOTWAL A G

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 1932 the Government Pleader has moved this Court that opponents 1 to 3, viz., S. K. Irani, an advocate practicing in this Court, 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 BRI A. G. Kotwal, Second Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Greater Bombay.

(2.) The facts in brief are : K. A. Master, opponent 2 to Criminal Application No. 339 of 1962 had filed an application (Application No. 4492 of 1959) against Jeena & Co. before the Payment of Wages Authority claiming certain amount as wages. This application was placed for disposal before Sri A. G. Kotwal, Second Additional Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, Bombay. It appears that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation. On 24 March 1961, Sri Kotwal after hearing the parties condoned the delay in filing the said application. In due course a stage was reached for recording evidence, and 17 August 1961, was the date fixed for recording evidence. On that day some evidence was recorded and it appears that Sri D. N. Salway, witness for Master, was in the witness-box by the end of the day. On the next day, i.e., 18 August 1961, an application was made by Master for time to file an application for declaring Sri Salway as a hostile witness. The case was adjourned to 22 August 1961. On this day, Sri 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 Jeena & Co. to Master should be left to Sri Kotwal. There was also a demand on behalf of Master that not only he should get his wages but he should be reinstated in service. But to this demand of Master for reinstatement in service, Jeena & Co. were not agreeable. On 22 August 1961, the parties informed Sri Kotwal that the talks for settlement had broken down on the question reinstatement. Irani, opponent 1 before us, who was appearing an counsel before the Payment of Wages Authority then asked for time to file an objection for declaring Sri Salway as a hostile witness. Master was directed to file his objection before 16 September 1961, and the other side was directed to file its reply before 13 November 1961, and the case was fixed for further bearing by mutual consent, on 27, 28 and 49 November and 1 December 1961. 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 4 November 1961, the advocate for the parties saw Sri Kotwal in his chamber, and Irani informed Sri Kotwal that 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 13 November and then adjourned to 27 November. We should have mentioned earlier that Jeena & Co. were represented by Gagrat & Co., solicitors, and two of their partners, Sri Rustom Gagrat and Sri Jehangir Gagrat, ware appearing from time to time for Jeena & Co. We should have also mentioned that Irani who was appearing as counsel for Master, is also his brother-in-law. Opponent 3, Miss Master is the sister of opponent 2, Master.

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