BADRI VISHAL PANDEY AND ORS. versus RAJESH MITTAL AND ORS.

Citation: [2019] 1 S.C.R. 223 · Decided: 04-01-2019 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.M. KHANWILKAR · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
223
BADRI VISHAL PANDEY AND ORS.
v.
RAJESH MITTAL AND ORS.
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 817 of 2018)
In
(Contempt Petition (C) No. 309 of 2016)
In
(S.L.P (C) No. 4470 of 2014)
JANUARY 04, 2019
[A. M. KHANWILKAR AND HEMANT GUPTA, JJ.]
Contempt – Contempt jurisdiction – Invocation of – On facts,
in a industrial dispute, order passed by the Supreme Court that as
and when any vacancy arises on daily wages/muster roll, the
preference to be given to terminated/retrenched employee of the
department – Contempt petition by the former employees against
the department that they were not reinstated and regularized against
the vacant posts – Held: Special Leave Petitions were disposed of
in the light of circular which contemplates that the retrenched
employees will be re-engaged in case any requirement arises and in
order of seniority – There was no direction to reinstate the petitioners
or to place them in minimum or regular pay scale – Contempt
jurisdiction cannot be invoked on the basis of impressions, when
the order of the Court does not contain any direction for
reinstatement or for grant of regular pay scale – Contempt would
be made out when there is wilful disobedience to the orders of this
Court – Since the Order of this Court is not of reinstatement, the
petitioners under the garb of the contempt petition cannot seek
reinstatement, when nothing was granted by this Court – Thus, the
department have not violated any order passed by this Court – U.P.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s. 6Q.
Dismissing the Contempt petitions, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The petitioners cannot claim any grievance of
not engaging them in pursuance of the order passed by this Court
when this Court has disposed of the Special Leave Petitions in
[2019] 1 S.C.R. 223
223
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
224
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2019] 1 S.C.R.
the light of circular dated 07.04.2015 which contemplates that
the retrenched employees will be re-engaged in case any
requirement arises and in order of seniority. Therefore, it cannot
be said that the respondents have violated any order passed by
this Court. [Para 26][234-G-H]
1.2 The circular dated 07.04.2015 is in terms of the mandate
of Section 6Q of the U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 so as to
maintain a list of retrenched workmen to be engaged as and when
the necessity arises. The Order of this Court dated 07.09.2015
has been passed on the basis of concession given on behalf of
the workmen in light of the circular dated 07.04.2015. There was
no order of this Court to re-engage the workmen who were parties
in the Special Leave Petitions. Therefore, in the absence of any
specific and categorical direction of reinstatement, the petitioners
cannot claim any right for reinstatement on the basis of the orders
passed by this Court on 07.09.2015. Furthermore, the petitioners
were not party in the group of Special Leave Petitions decided
on 07.09.2015. The Order of this Court is to take workmen on
daily wage basis as per office order dated 07.04.2015. The
submission of the petitioner that they accepted the order under
the impression that the workmen are being reinstated cannot be
accepted as the order dated 07.09.2015 has been passed on the
basis of the circular which contemplates that the workmen shall
be reinstated as per the seniority list as and when requirement
in future arises. [Paras 18-20][232-E-H; 233-A]
1.3 The argument that 550 Group D posts are available
against which petitioners may be appointed is not tenable. The
Group D posts are required to be filled on the basis of
qualifications prescribed for filling up of such posts in the Rules
as may be applicable to make appointments to such posts. The
petitioners, if eligible, can compete for such appointments. But
merely they were once engaged on muster roll, they cannot have
right to seek regular appointment against Group D posts dehors
the eligibility conditions prescribed in the Rules. The regular
appointment can be made keeping in view the principles of public
appointment which is by issuance of an advertisement giving
opportunity to all eligible candidates to apply and to consider
their suitability for the posts in non-discriminatory manner. The
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
225
petitioners appointed on muster roll basis cannot claim regular
appointment against the vacant Group D posts when the Award
of the Labour Court was of reinstatement and not that of regular
appointment. [Para 21][233-D-H]
1.4 There is no direction in the order passed by this Court
to reinstate th

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.