CHAMPA RANI Vs. RAJ SUKH NANDAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a petition under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, (thereinafter called the Act], which was filed on November 1, 1985, on the allegations that the award, directing reinstatement of the petitioner with full back wages and continuity of service was published in the Haryana Government Gazette dated August 10, 1982, copy Annexure P.1. She had been approaching the respondent from time to time for reinstatement and also to pay her the back wages. She gave joining report on September 6, 1982, vide copy, Annexure P.2. She also submitted applications to the Labour Department and the other dignitaries of the State for the implementation of the award, but without any success, Even the Labour and Reconciliation Officer, Ambala Cantt. had written to the respondent vide letter dated March, 16, 1984, copy, Annexure PA, for implementing the award, but that too was without any result. Thus, according to the petitioner, the respondent bad committed deliberate contempt of Court for which he should be punished accordingly. In the reply filed on behalf of the respondent, certain preliminary objections were taken. It was pleaded that the contempt petition as such was not maintainable because the non-implementation of the award of the industrial tribunal did not amount to contempt of court. It was further pleaded that the petitioner had got separate remedy by filing a petition under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, to get the award implemented. Moreover, the contempt Petition was barred by time as it had been flied after more than one year of the award announced by the Court. In paragraph 4 of the preliminary objections it has been inter alia stated that an award is enforceable for a period of One year and after that, it ceases to have its effect as provided under section 9 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act. The said award having been published on August 10, 1982, its operation came to an end on August 10, 1983 and. therefore, the contempt petition filed on November 1, 1985, was barred by time. It has also been pleaded that Civil Writ Petition No. 3266 of 1983, (The Management of M/S. Philadelphia Hospital, Ambala City v. The Presiding Officer. Industrial Tribunal, Haryana, Faridabad was filed against the award dated August, 10, 1982, as it was passed ex-parte. The said writ petition was dismissed on July 29, 1983, with the following observations :

(2.) THE learned counsel for the respondent raised preliminary objection that the contempt petition was barred by time in view of the provisions of section 20 of the Act, which provides a period of one year for initiating any proceeding for contempt from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. According to the learned counsel, the period of operation of an award is one year from, the date the award becomes enforceable under section 17 A as contemplated under subsection (3) of section 19 of the Act, which, according to the learned counsel, came to an end on August 10, 1983, whereas the petition for contempt was filed on November 1, 1985, which was, therefore, clearly barred by time. In support of the contention, the learned counsel relied. upon K.M. Mukherjee v. Secy S.B.I., 1968 Labour and Industrial Cases 127 and Baradakanta v. Misra, C.J, Orissa H.C., AIR 1974 Supreme Court 2255. The learned counsel also contended that there was statutory remedy available to the petitioner under section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and, therefore, in view of the said remedy, the present contempt petition was not maintainable. Reliance in this behalf was placed by the learned counsel on Titaghur Paper mills Co. Ltd. v. State of Orissa, AIR 1983 Supreme Court 603. It was also submitted that proceedings under section 29 of the Act, were already pending in the Court of the Judicial Magistrate and that February 8, 1988, was the next date fixed for recording evidence of the prosecution.

(3.) THE main question to be decided in this petition is : whether this petition is barred by time or not, as contemplated under section 20 of the Act, which reads : -