LexRAJESHWAR MAHTO versus ALOK KUMAR GUPTA, G.M. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION LTD.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
529
RAJESHWAR MAHTO
v.
ALOK KUMAR GUPTA, G.M. M/S BIRLA CORPORATION
LTD.
(Misc. Application No.711 of 2017)
IN
(Contempt Petition No. 785 of 2018)
IN
(Civil Appeal No.4482 of 1998)
FEBRUARY 23, 2018
[R. K. AGRAWAL AND ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.17-B – Order under –
Enforcement of – Services of applicant-employee terminated by the
employer-Corporation by order dtd. 01.09.1985 – Applicant raised
an industrial dispute before Industrial Tribunal which answered
the reference in favour of Corporation holding that applicant was
not a workman within the meaning of expression “workman” – Writ
petition filed by applicant, allowed – Division Bench dismissed the
LPA by Corporation – SLP filed by Corporation – Vide interim order
dtd. 04.05.1999 passed u/s.17B, Corporation was directed by the
Supreme Court to pay to the applicant full wages last drawn by him
on 01.09.1985 inclusive of maintenance allowance admissible to
him – SLP allowed by Order dtd. 31.10.2000 – Present contempt
petition filed by applicant alleging that interim order dtd. 04.05.1999
has not yet been complied with by the Corporation – Held:
Notwithstanding the allowing of the appeal of Corporation, by
Supreme Court vide order dtd. 31.10.2000, order dtd. 04.05.1999
passed in the said appeal remains legal and valid and being
independent in nature, the same has to be given effect to in favour
of the applicant-employee, if not found complied with by the
employer-Corporation – An order passed u/s.17-B does not merge
with the final order passed in the appeal and being an independent
order, it remains alive for enforcement – Applicant is held entitled
to claim Rs.7,50,000/- towards all his claims in full and final
settlement pursuant to the order dated 04.05.1999 – Contempt of
Courts Act, 1971.
[2018] 2 S.C.R. 529
529
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
530
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 2 S.C.R.
Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 – s.17-B – Object and Scope
of – Discussed.
Disposing of the contempt petition, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Notwithstanding allowing of the appeal filed by
the Corporation by this Court by order dated 31.10.2000, so far
as order dated 04.05.1999 passed in the aforesaid appeal is
concerned, it remains legal and valid and being independent in
nature, the same has to be given effect to in favour of the applicant
(employee), if not found complied with by the employer
(Corporation). [Para 19] [535-C]
Dena Bank vs. Kiritikumar T. Patel (1999) 2 SCC
106 : [1997] 5 Suppl. SCR 263 – relied on.
1.2 Even if the employer eventually succeeds in its appeal
against his employee, in which such order was passed during the
pendency of employer’s appeal, the employer continues to remain
under legal obligation to comply with such order passed by the
Court under Section 17-B of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 in
favour of the employee. An order passed under Section 17-B of
Act does not merge with the final order passed in the appeal and
being an independent order, it remains alive for enforcement. It
is not disputed that the Corporation has not yet complied with
the order dated 04.05.1999 much less in letter and spirit. [Paras
20, 21] [535-D-E]
1.3 The matter has been examined keeping in view the
nature of controversy, long pendency of the case, nature of interim
order passed by this Court, offer made by the Corporation for
settlement and the sum payable to the applicant under various
heads etc. The amount payable to the applicant pursuant to the
order dated 04.05.1999 has been worked out under different
Heads, such as monthly salary, its arrears, leave encashment,
gratuity, bonus, interest, if held payable, on the entire sum at a
reasonable rate from 04.05.1999. Having examined the matter
and taking into consideration the aforementioned several relevant
factors, the applicant is held entitled to claim from the Corporation
a total sum of Rs.7,50,000/- towards all his claims arising out of
his employment dispute with the Corporation in full and final
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
531
settlement pursuant to the order dated 04.05.1999. [Paras 22-
24] [535-F-H; 536-A]
1.4 It is stated at the bar that the applicant is in occupation
of the Corporation quarter, which had been allotted to him by
virtue of his employment. If that be so, the applicant will vacate
the quarter within three months from the date of this order as an
outer limit. On applicant’s vacating the quarter within the time
fixed by this Court, the Corporation will accordingly pay to the
apExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.