COCP-750 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 206 Dharamvir Hisashi Takeuchi CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Present: - NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) 1. compliance of order dated 24.05.2022 Division Bench of this Court in titled as ‘Maruti Suzuki operative part of the order dated 750-2023 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP Date of Decision: Versus Hisashi Takeuchi CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Mutneja, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Gupta and Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocates for the respondent. NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present contempt petition h compliance of order dated 24.05.2022 Bench of this Court in CM-2053 Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. vs. Presiding Officer and another operative part of the order dated 24.05.2022, read “Counsel for the parties have been heard but we do not find any reason to accept the stand as has been projected by the learned Senior Coun applicant/appellant. As per the provisions of Section 17 the benefit is to be granted in case there is a stay granted by the Court with regard to therein workman who has an Award in his favour by court. Present is the case where the applicant/respondent No.2 has an Award in his favour from the Labour Court with regard to therein statement in service but without back wages, which matter is pending petition preferred by the non No.11168 of 2014. The question of back wages therefore do not arise. The stay of reinstatement of the workman was granted by this Court vide therefore, he would be entitled to the benefit of from the date of the said order till date. The said arrears be IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP-750-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.08.2025 .… Petitioner .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA Mr. Ankur Sheoran, Advocate for Mr. Samrat Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pawan Mutneja, Senior Advocate with Mr. Siddharth Gupta and Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocates The present contempt petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of order dated 24.05.2022 (Annexure P-1) passed by a 2053-LPA-2018 in LPA-1203-2014 Presiding Officer and another’. The 24.05.2022, reads as follows: - Counsel for the parties have been heard but we do to accept the stand as has been projected by the learned Senior Counsel for the non- applicant/appellant. As per the provisions of Section 17-B, to be granted in case there is a stay granted by the Court with regard to therein statement in service of the workman who has an Award in his favour by the Labour court. Present is the case where the applicant/respondent an Award in his favour from the Labour Court with statement in service but without back wages, which matter is pending consideration in a writ n-applicant/appellant i.e. CWP No.11168 of 2014. The question of back wages therefore do The stay of reinstatement of the workman was order dated 05.11.2015 and therefore, he would be entitled to the benefit of Section 17-B from the date of the said order till date. The said arrears be passed by a 2014 . The Counsel for the parties have been heard but we do to accept the stand as has been projected B, to be granted in case there is a stay granted by statement in service of the the Labour court. Present is the case where the applicant/respondent an Award in his favour from the Labour Court with statement in service but without back consideration in a writ CWP No.11168 of 2014. The question of back wages therefore do The stay of reinstatement of the workman was order dated 05.11.2015 and B from the date of the said order till date. The said arrears be RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.29 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-750 2. although, some payment has been released to the petitioner in pursuance of the direction reproduced above, however, complete been made by the petitioner had to be calculated @ calculated @ payable to the petitioner was not 3. respondent points out that came to a total amount petitioner on 12.07.2024. further refers to the calculations (Annexures R arriving at the aforesaid amount of that a sum of petitioner. been assessed at a rate higher than that claimed by the petitioner. 4. that in making payment of the aforesaid amount income deducted at source. ₹10,495/-income tax of income to be petitioner. 750-2023 (O&M) -2- paid to the applicant-respondent No.2 within a period of two months. The non-applicant/appellant shall continue to pay last pay drawn by the applicant pendency of the present appeal or his whichever is earlier.” It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that some payment has been released to the petitioner in pursuance of the direction reproduced above, however, complete been made by the respondent. It is also conten had to be calculated @ ₹8840 whereas the respondents have calculated @ ₹8020/- per month. It is also submitted that payable to the petitioner was not liable to income tax. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents opposes submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and points out that the arrears of the petitioner for the period up to a total amount of₹9,78,539/-which has been duly paid to petitioner on 12.07.2024. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further refers to the calculations (Annexures R arriving at the aforesaid amount of ₹9,78,539/ sum of ₹10,495/- has been taken as monthly income of the petitioner. It is submitted that accordingly income of the petitioner has been assessed at a rate higher than that claimed by the petitioner. It is further submitted that it is that in making payment of the aforesaid amount income deducted at source. Ld. Senior counsel clarifies that upon the income of income tax of ₹1483/- has been deducted; thus income to be ₹9012/-; which is still higher than the rate claimed by the Learned Senior Counsel further relies upon judgment of the respondent No.2 within a period of two applicant/appellant shall continue to pay last pay drawn by the applicant-respondent No.2 during the of the present appeal or his superannuation It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that some payment has been released to the petitioner in pursuance of the direction reproduced above, however, complete payment has not It is also contended that income of the 8840 whereas the respondents have It is also submitted that the income liable to income tax. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the opposes submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and the arrears of the petitioner for the period up to 05.11.2015 which has been duly paid to the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents further refers to the calculations (Annexures R-1/C and R-1/D) made in 9,78,539/- wherein it has been shown has been taken as monthly income of the accordingly income of the petitioner has been assessed at a rate higher than that claimed by the petitioner. it is the grievance of the petitioner that in making payment of the aforesaid amount income tax has been clarifies that upon the income of deducted; thus rendering rate of which is still higher than the rate claimed by the Learned Senior Counsel further relies upon judgment of the respondent No.2 within a period of two applicant/appellant shall continue to pay respondent No.2 during the superannuation It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that some payment has been released to the petitioner in pursuance payment has not of the 8840 whereas the respondents have the income Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the 5.11.2015 the Learned Senior Counsel for the respondents 1/D) made in wherein it has been shown has been taken as monthly income of the accordingly income of the petitioner has titioner tax has been clarifies that upon the income of rendering rate of which is still higher than the rate claimed by the Learned Senior Counsel further relies upon judgment of the RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.29 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-750 Hon’ble Apex Court in another, (1985) Supreme Court Cases 349, the payment is made source. Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent case income of the petitioner is in fact not liable to income tax, petitioner has the liberty to apply to Section 192 of the Income Tax Act determination is accordingly prayed that the present contempt petition be dismissed being meritless. 5. 6. Counsel for the respondent which are not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner 7. 8. 27.08.2025 rishu 750-2023 (O&M) -3- Hon’ble Apex Court in Sant Raj and another vs. O.P. Singla and another, (1985) Supreme Court Cases 349, the payment is made in lump sum, income tax has to be deduced at Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent case income of the petitioner is in fact not liable to income tax, petitioner has the liberty to apply to the Income Tax Department under Section 192 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 determination to this effect being made by the Income Tax Department. is accordingly prayed that the present contempt petition be dismissed being meritless. Heard. I find merit in the above noted Counsel for the respondent which are not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. As such, the present petition Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. .2025 Whether speaking/reasoned Whether Reportable Sant Raj and another vs. O.P. Singla and another, (1985) Supreme Court Cases 349, wherein it is held that where , income tax has to be deduced at Learned Senior Counsel for the respondent further submits that in case income of the petitioner is in fact not liable to income tax, the the Income Tax Department under , 1961 and seek refund upon his effect being made by the Income Tax Department. It is accordingly prayed that the present contempt petition be dismissed find merit in the above noted submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent which are not disputed by learned counsel for stands dismissed. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Yes/No Sant Raj and another vs. O.P. Singla and where , income tax has to be deduced at further submits that in the the Income Tax Department under and seek refund upon It is accordingly prayed that the present contempt petition be dismissed submissions of learned Senior Counsel for the respondent which are not disputed by learned counsel for RISHU KATARIA 2025.08.29 17:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.