LAWS(RAJ)-2007-9-74

SUO MOTU Vs. MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA

Decided On September 14, 2007
SUO MOTU Appellant
V/S
MAHENDRA KUMAR SHARMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant suo motu contempt proceedings have been initiated against Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Deputy Registrar (Judicial) in following circumstances.

(2.) D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1432/2006 is filed by Union of India & Others against the judgment dated March 23, 2006 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1833/2003 by which the appellants are directed to comply with the award dated February 18, 2002 rendered by the Central Industrial Tribunal within 30 days from the date of the receipt of certified copy of the said order and the labour department is directed to take prompt action on the applications filed by the concerned workman under Section 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

(3.) The appeal was placed before the Division Bench for preliminary hearing on May 21, 2007. The affidavit in reply in opposition was filed by the workman to the interim relief claimed by the appellants, but as the same was not on record, the matter was adjourned to May 22, 2007 with a direction to the office to place on record the reply affidavit filed by the workman in opposition to the interim relief immediately. Though the matter was again notified for hearing on May 22, 2007 the reply affidavit filed by the respondent-workman in opposition to the interim relief was not placed on record. The Court noticed that this was not an isolated case where the Registry had failed to comply with the Court s direction in time. Under the circumstances, the Court issued notice by an order dated May 22, 2007 to Mr. Mahendra Kumar Sharma, Deputy Registrar (Judicial) to show cause as to why he should not be committed to contempt for having disobeyed the order dated May 21, 2007 because disobedience of the order dated May 21, 2007 had resulted into loss of precious time of the Court and the Court had not been able to deal with the matter though urgency was shown by the learned Counsel for the appellants. The notice issued was made returnable on May 25, 2007.