WORKMEN THROUGH SECRETARY, BIHAR COLLIERY KAMGAR UNION, DHANBAD Vs. EMPLOYERS IN RELATION TO THE MANAGEMENT OF KUYA COLLIERY, DHANBAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN C.W.J.C. No. 212 of 1994 this Court passed an order dated 5 -10 -1994 directing the management of Kuya Colliery of M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. to pay the workers involved in that writ petition, their monthly wages in terms of Sec.17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act. In C.W.J.C. No. 212/94 filed by, M/s. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd. the management challenges the award of the Industrial Tribunal in Reference No. 55/85 dated 8 -4 -1993 whereby, the Tribunal directed the management to give employment to all the workmen involved in that reference within two months of the publication of the award. It was in that writ petition that the order under Sec.17 -B of the Industrial Disputes Act was passed. The workmen moved this Court by this contempt application contending that the management has wilfully disobeyed the direction of this Court and hence, the management was guilty of contempt of Court. In answer to the notice issued by the Court, the management submitted that it had complied with the order by calculating and paying the amount due as per the award and as per the order under Sec.17 -B of the Act. It is submitted in defence that actually the workmen are disputing the amount and claiming something more. That did not involve any contempt of Court. There was no wilful disobedience of the order of this Court.

(2.) IT is not disputed by the workmen that some amounts have been paid by the management pursuant to the order of this Court on the basis of Sec.17 -B of the Act. But it is contended that the calculation of the amount was not correct and the correct amounts, according to the workmen, have not been paid. Thus we find that this is not case of, or which could be termed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. Only a wilful disobedience would amount to a civil contempt as defined in the Contempt of Courts Act. There appears to be a real dispute between the parties regarding the amount payable under Sec.17 -B of the I.D. Act. The existence of such a dispute cannot lead to an inference that the management has been guilty of wilful disobedience of the order of this Court directing payment of the amounts under Sec.17 -B of the Act. We are, therefore, satisfied that no action under the Contempt of Courts Act is warranted in the case on hand. We are also satisfied that no case has been made out for the exercise of jurisdiction of this Court under Art. 215 of the Constitution of India. In that situation, we are satisfied that the contempt of Court proceedings should be dropped.