Dismissed

Hari Ram Mehto and Ors. v. Arun Gupta etc. and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 Feb 2012COCP/1897/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a contempt petition regarding delay in issuing appointment orders to contract labourors for departmentalization, the Court held that the delay was not the fault of the applicants. It granted an extension for one more appearance before the Area Manager to allow those seeking it to claim the accrued benefits.

What did the court decide?

Extension granted for appearing before the Area Manager by 05.03.2012; Contempt petition dismissed.

Hari Ram Mehto and Ors. Vs Arun Gupta etc. and Ors. — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

[1]

¶2

COCP No.1897 of 2010(O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

COCP No.1897 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:15.02.2012

¶5

The Food Corporation of India Workers Union, 58, Diamond Harbour Road, Calcutta-23, through its Assistant Secretary Shri Bhagwan Dass and others.

¶6

... Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

The Food Corporation of India, through its Managing Director, 16-20, Barakhamba Lane, New Delhi and others.

¶9

... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶11

Present:Mr. Puneet Jindal, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners.

¶12

Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate,

¶13

for the respondents.

¶14

¶15

1.Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? NO

¶16

2.To be referred to the reporters or not? NO

¶17

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? NO

¶18

K. KANNAN, J. (Oral)

¶19

CM No.132-CII of 2012

¶20

This Court by order dated 01.03.2011 has passed an order in the contempt petition that persons, who claimed employment on the basis of the Committee report, shall appear before the Area Manager on 15.03.2011 and they should establish their identity before claiming benefit of the report. The Court had also directed that if any employee was unable to appear on 15.03.2011, he might do so within a week thereafter on or before 22.03.2011. On such appearance and establishing the identity, the orders of appointment could be issued. The counsel for the applicants-petitioners points out that although

¶21

[2]

¶22

COCP No.1897 of 2010(O&M)

¶23

the Court had directed the parties to appear before 22.03.2011 and that the appointment orders were required to be issued within a week thereafter namely before the end of March, 2011, the orders were not so issued and they continued with the process of so called identification and the last order of appointment was passed only on 05.12.2011. The applicantspetitioners claim that they came to know about this order only now when some of the persons have received the appointment orders in December, 2011.

¶24

Although the procedure of issuing interim orders of appointment ought to have been properly exercised only through appropriate applications in the writ petition itself, I will not make an issue of these applications being brought in the contempt petition only because the order on 1^st March, 2011 itself has been passed in the contempt petition and not in the writ petition.

¶25

The applicants-petitioners have taken benefit after a long drawn litigation for no fault of theirs except the defect in the judicial system. The rights, which have accrued ought not to be allowed to be whittled by technicalities and more particularly, when the respondents have taken their own long time to pass the orders of appointment. I do not think that any prejudice will be caused to the respondents, if the period granted already is extended. Only such of those applicantspetitioners, who have sought for extension before this Court in the above application, shall be allowed the benefit of extension and they shall appear before the Area Manager, FCI, Karnal before 05.03.2012. No further extension will be given and the failure of any of the applicants-petitioners to appear and produce the proof as necessary, will result in the obvious consequence of rejection of the opportunity of that they are claiming for.

¶26

[3]

¶27

COCP No.1897 of 2010(O&M)

¶28

The application is disposed of disposed of as above. COCP No.1897 of 2010

¶29

The petition for contempt has been filed for alleged disobedience of the order passed by this Court in CWP No.11647 of 1994 and as modified by the judgment of the Division Bench in LPA No.83 of 2009 dated 24.02.2010. The Division Bench had allowed for the continuation of Sh. R.P. Bajaj, who had been appointed by the Single Judge for preparing a report determining the seniority of persons, who were employed on contract labour and who were directed to be departmentalized and absorbed under the service of the Food Corporation of India. There were other Committee reports as well, which Sh. R.P. Bajaj was to consider before finalizing the seniority list.

¶30

The basis of complaint for contempt at the instance of the petitioners, who were also the petitioners in the writ petition referred to above is that in the manner of issuing an office order on 07.05.2011, the Food Corporation proceeded beyond the brief and made rejection of some candidates as not having established their age or eliciting information if they were alive to claim departmentalization. The reality must be assessed. The order passed by a Single Judge in the year 2009 was after the long pendency of the proceedings from the year 1994. The persons, who were claiming absorption after departmentalization, were persons, who had been actually employed through contractors but through a dispensation of a Government ban on employment through contract labour in certain types of jobs under Section 10(i) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, the continuance of the contract system became impermissible were required to be absorbed. When the Food Corporation was, therefore, directing parties to be present to give proof of the age in order that they

¶31

[4]

¶32

COCP No.1897 of 2010(O&M)

¶33

were absorbed and continued in employment and also to verify whether they were alive to claim the employment, they were surely not causing any breach of the directions issued already through the order of the Single Judge or the Division Bench. I do not believe that there is any disobedience much less willful disobedience that could be characterized as in contempt of Court.

¶34

The petition for contempt is, therefore, dismissed.

¶35

15^th February, 2012 Rajan

¶36

( K. KANNAN ) JUDGE

Hari Ram Mehto and Ors. v. Arun Gupta etc. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hari Ram Mehto and Ors. v. Arun Gupta etc. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishna Devi Dhingra Vs State of Hy. and Ors.

S Karnail Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Chhotu Ram Vs H.S.M.I.T.C. and Ors.

Chand Kaur Vs Pankaj Nain and Ors.

Fci Workers Union Vs Fci & Ors.

Ram Rattans/O Jamuna Sahni Vs Food Corp of India,through Md.Delhi