Disposed

Satish Chandra Pandey v. Prof. Soniya Nityanand, V.C. of Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospital, Kgmu Lko. and Others

Allahabad HC8 Jul 2024CAPL/2576/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In contempt application regarding willful disobedience of industrial award and Supreme Court orders, the court declined to punish respondents and dismissed the application directing the applicant to seek remedy under the Industrial Act.

What did the court decide?

Contempt application disposed; applicant directed to approach Tribunal for execution and challenge the order dated 24.06.2024 separately.

Satish Chandra Pandey vs Prof. Soniya… — Labour and Industrial Disputes | Allahabad HC (2024)

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2024:AHC-LKO:46053

¶2

Court No. - 17

¶3

Case :- CONTEMPT APPLICATION (CIVIL) No. - 2576 of 2024

¶4

Applicant :- Satish Chandra Pandey Opposite Party :- Prof. Soniya Nityanand, V.C. Of Gandhi Memorial And Associated Hospital, Kgmu Lko. And Others Counsel for Applicant :- Onkar Pandey,Prakash Chandra Baranwal

¶5

Hon'ble Rajeev Singh,J.

¶6

1. Heard.

¶7

The instant contempt application has been filed for punishing the respondents for willful disobedience of order dated 27.10.2023 passed in Writ-C No. 6677 of 2016 and order dated 19.04.2024 passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in S.L.P. (C) No. 2719 of 2024.

¶8

Learned counsel for the applicant submits that controversy was decided by Industrial Tribunal Second, Lucknow vide order dated 22.09.2015 which was challenged before this Court by Superintendent Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospital, Lucknow in Writ-C No. 6677 of 2016 which was dismissed on 27.10.2023, thereafter, aforesaid judgement was challenged in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No. 2719 of 2024 which was partly allowed by modifying award in relation to the grant of backwages, but till today order of award has not been complied with. He further submits that in place of executing the award, respondent authorities issued an order dated 24.06.2024, by which, the applicant is being insisted for joining through outsourcing agency M/s Xeam Ventures Pvt. Ltd., hence, respondents are violating directions of Hon'ble Supreme Court.

¶9

Learned counsel for the applicant does not dispute the fact that there is an appropriate mechanism under the provisions of U.P. Industrial Dispute Act for execution of award.

¶10

Thus, the contempt application is disposed of with liberty to the applicant to take appropriate remedy before Hon'ble Tribunal for execution of the award and he can also take appropriate remedy against the order dated 24.06.2024 passed by Registrar, King George Medical University, Lucknow.

¶11

Order Date :- 8.7.2024/Arpan

¶12

Digitally signed by :- ARPAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

Satish Chandra Pandey v. Prof. Soniya Nityanand, V.C. of Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospital, Kgmu Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satish Chandra Pandey v. Prof. Soniya Nityanand, V.C. of Gandhi Memorial and Associated Hospital, Kgmu Lko. and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases

Sudhansh Kumar Rastogi Vs Shiv Shanker Mahadevan SHO P.S.Alambagh Lko. and 7 Others

Pankaj Gupta Vs Mithlesh Kumar, Distt. Inspector of Schools, Shrawasti

Jagrani Vs Smt. Neha Awasthi, Chairman, Nagar Palika Parisad, Sitapur and Another

Jaan Mohammad and Another vs State of U.P. Thru. Prin. Secy. Home, Lko. and Another

Ramakant Rawat and Others vs Dr. Vijay Bahadur Dwivedi, Director Horticulture and Food Processing, Lko. and Another

Ruksana vs Mahendra Bahadur Singh, District Magistrate / Collector, Lakhimpur Kheri