Case Note & Summary
The present contempt petitions arose from an order dated 07.09.2015 passed by the Supreme Court disposing of a batch of Special Leave Petitions filed by U.P. Jal Nigam Construction Division against High Court orders that had directed reinstatement of retrenched daily wage workmen. The background involved workmen engaged before 1991 as Runners, Beldars, and Lab Assistants whose services were retrenched in 1991. The High Court in various writ petitions had set aside the termination and directed reinstatement without back wages. The Jal Nigam challenged these orders in the Supreme Court. During the hearing, the counsel for the Jal Nigam submitted that an office order dated 07.04.2015 had been issued providing that in future, as and when vacancies arise on daily wages/muster roll, preference would be given to terminated/retrenched employees, and a list of 1003 such workmen was attached. The counsel for the workmen conceded that their names were included in the list, and accordingly, the SLPs were disposed of recording that the workmen had no grievance. Subsequently, the workmen filed contempt petitions alleging that the Jal Nigam had not reinstated them. The Supreme Court examined whether the order dated 07.09.2015 required reinstatement or merely a preference policy. The Court noted that the order only recorded the submission about the office order and the inclusion of names, and did not direct reinstatement. The earlier contempt petitions were disposed of on 11.01.2017 on the ground that the names were included in the seniority list. The Court found that the Jal Nigam had issued an advertisement calling 100 retrenched employees as per the seniority list, which was sufficient compliance. The Court held that there was no willful disobedience and dismissed the contempt petitions, clarifying that the order did not create a right to automatic reinstatement.
Headnote
A) Contempt of Court - Willful Disobedience - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b) - The petitioners alleged that the Jal Nigam failed to comply with the order dated 07.09.2015 which disposed of the SLPs on the basis of an office order dated 07.04.2015. The Court examined whether the order required reinstatement or only preference for future vacancies. Held that the order only recorded the submission that the workmen's names were included in the list for preference, and no specific direction for reinstatement was given. Therefore, no willful disobedience was established. (Paras 1-15) B) Interpretation of Court Orders - Scope of Compliance - The order dated 07.09.2015 was passed on the concession of counsel that the workmen's names were in the list for daily wage engagement. The Court clarified that the order did not direct reinstatement but only recorded the undertaking to give preference. The subsequent compliance by issuing advertisement for 100 retrenched employees was held to be sufficient. (Paras 7-15) C) Industrial Disputes - Retrenchment - Preference in Re-employment - Section 6H of U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 - The High Court had earlier directed reinstatement without back wages in some cases, but the Supreme Court disposed of the SLPs based on the office order dated 07.04.2015 which provided for preference to retrenched employees for future vacancies. The Court held that the office order did not create a right to automatic reinstatement. (Paras 3-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the respondents (Jal Nigam) committed contempt of court by not reinstating the petitioners despite the order dated 07.09.2015 and the earlier High Court directions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petitions, holding that there was no willful disobedience of the order dated 07.09.2015. The Court clarified that the order only recorded the submission about the office order providing preference for future vacancies, and did not direct reinstatement. The Jal Nigam's action of issuing an advertisement for 100 retrenched employees was held to be sufficient compliance. The Court also noted that the earlier contempt petitions were disposed of on the basis that names were included in the seniority list.
Law Points
- Contempt of court requires willful disobedience
- Order dated 07.09.2015 interpreted as preference policy not reinstatement
- No automatic right to reinstatement despite High Court order
- Preference to retrenched employees for future vacancies is sufficient compliance
