Disposed

Ameer Haider v. Mr. Harshwardhan Singh, Regional Manager, S.B.I., Regional Officer, Rai Bareily and Another

Allahabad HC10 May 2024CAPL/1944/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A contempt application against SBI officials over non-execution of an Industrial Tribunal award. Since the interim writ-court order was conditional on depositing 30% of back wages, which was not paid, the Court found no contempt made out and directed expeditious conclusion of the Tribunal execution proceedings.

What the court decided

AI extract

Ameer Haider vs Mr. Harshwardhan Singh… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:47265

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 1944 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Ameer Haider

¶5

Opposite Party :- Mr. Harshwardhan Singh, Regional Manager, S.B.I., Regional Officer, Rai Bareily And Another Counsel for Applicant :- Sanjay Kumar Srivastava,Akshat Kumar Counsel for Opposite Party :- Anurag Srivastava

¶6

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶7

Vakalatnama filed by Shri Anurag Srivastava, Advocate on behalf of respondent no. 2 is taken on record. Shri Anurag Srivastava also files a counter affidavit duly sworn by Mr. Abhishek Singh Yadav working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jayas Branch, Amethi is also taken on record.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant is directed to implead Mr. Abhishek Singh Yadav working as Branch Manager, State Bank of India, Jayas Branch, Amethi as respondent no. 3 in the array of parties, forthwith.

¶9

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that feeling aggrieved with the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal, Writ-C No. 33389 of 2019 was filed by the State Bank of India, in which, interim order was passed on 13.10.2023 with the direction that the back wages granted at the rate of 60% is stayed, subject to payment of 30% of back wages to the respondent no. 4/applicant. It is also submitted that the amount, as ordered by the writ Court vide interim order dated 13.10.2023, is not deposited, therefore, the benefit of interim order will not be available. It is, thus, submitted that no contempt is made out.

¶10

Learned counsel for the applicant, however, submits that the execution proceeding was going on before the Tribunal, but the the Bank officials, by placing the order dated 13.10.2023 passed in the aforesaid writ petition before the Tribunal, informed that there is a stay order.

¶11

Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the applicant as well as statement made by Shri Anurag Srivastava that the 30% amount of back wages, as ordered by the writ Court in the interim order dated 13.10.2023, was not paid, therefore, the protection of the said interim order is not available to the Bank. Therefore, this Court is of the view that no contempt is made out.

¶12

However, as learned counsel for the respondent-Bank officials admits that in the aforesaid writ petition filed by the Bank officials, interim order dated 13.10.2023 was passed, subject to deposit of 30% back wages, but as the same is not deposited, the benefit of the said interim order is not available to the respondents.

¶13

In view of above, it is open to the applicant to pursue the execution proceedings pending before the Tribunal and the Tribunal is also directed to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously, without giving any unnecessary adjournments to either of the parties.

¶14

With the aforesaid direction, the contempt application stands disposed of.

¶15

Order Date :- 11.7.2024 VKS

¶16

Digitally signed by :- VIVEK KUMAR SRIVASTAVA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Ameer Haider v. Mr. Harshwardhan Singh, Regional Manager, S.B.I., Regional Officer, Rai Bareily and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Ameer Haider v. Mr. Harshwardhan Singh, Regional Manager, S.B.I., Regional Officer, Rai Bareily and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

M/S Moon Pharma Lko. Thru. Its Proprietor Sri Awanish Tiwari Vs Sri. C.L. Verma Chief Medical Officer, District Mirzapur

Pradeepta Verma Vs Sri Surendra Tiwari, Secy. Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad

Ishrat Jahan Vs Sri Abhishek Yadav, Tehsildar, Tehsil Tiloi, Amethi

Irshad and Another Vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home Lko.

Smt Vidya Sonkar Vs Sri Sunil Kumar and Others

Parashu Ram Singh Vs J.S.Sandhu V.C. Narendra Dev University Faizabad and Anr.