906-cp-14-2015.doc Shabnoor IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CONTEMPT PETITION NO.14 OF 2015 The President, Association of Engineering Workers … Petitioner V/s. P. K. Kothari, The Chairman Cum Managing Director The Rechardson & Cruddas (1972) Ltd. & Ors. … Respondents Mr. Chaitanya R. Kulkarni a/w Ms. Poushali Chakraborty i/b Mr. Abhinav Tewari, for the Petitioner. Mr. Amogh Singh a/w Mr. Parth Jasani a/w Mr. Rahul Agrawal, for Respondent. CORAM : AMIT BORKAR, J. DATED : DECEMBER 12, 2025 P.C.: 1. The petitioner association has approached this Court through the present contempt petition. The allegation is that the contemnors have willfully disobeyed the Award dated 26 September 2011 passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal 2 in Reference No. 2/93 of 1999. The petitioner asserts that the Award directed payment of Rs. 4.20 per day. The contemnors, however, paid only Rs. 1.45 per day. The petitioner submits that this shortfall is deliberate and amounts to willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s Award. 1 SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Digitally signed by SHABNOOR AYUB PATHAN Date: 2025.12.12 15:30:39 +0530 906-cp-14-2015.doc 2. The learned Advocate for the contemnors submits that the contemnors have complied with the Award in full measure. He states that the amount paid reflects proper compliance with the direction of the Tribunal. He submits that there is no element of willful disobedience that would justify invoking the contempt jurisdiction of this Court. 3. The petitioner disputes the above position. According to the petitioner, the Award has not been implemented in the manner directed by CGIT 2. The petitioner submits that such non- compliance goes to the root of the matter and constitutes contempt of the Tribunal’s Award. 4. At this stage, it is necessary to examine the settled legal position governing contempt proceedings when a party seeks enforcement of an award or order of a tribunal. In Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque versus S. A. Azmi and others, a Co ordinate Bench of this Court considered a contempt petition alleging breach of an order of the School Tribunal. The Court observed that before invoking contempt jurisdiction, the petitioner must show that no other effective remedy exists for enforcing the order. The Court held that when the order of the Tribunal is capable of execution under section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the party must first take recourse to that statutory mechanism. Since an execution remedy was available, the Court declined to entertain the contempt petition and directed the petitioner to pursue the appropriate statutory forum. 2 906-cp-14-2015.doc 5. The Co ordinate Bench placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Om Prakash Jaiswal versus D. K. Mittal and others, (2000) 3 SCC 171. The Supreme Court held that while exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, the Court must consider whether the petitioner has an alternative remedy for enforcement of the order alleged to have been breached. This consideration is material. It guides the Court in deciding whether the contempt jurisdiction should be invoked at all. 6. In the facts of that case, this Court noted that the order of the School Tribunal carried the force of a decree. Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure provided a complete mechanism for execution. The law recognises that when a statute creates a right and prescribes a mode for its enforcement, the party must ordinarily follow that mode. The contempt jurisdiction is not meant to replace statutory remedies. It is a jurisdiction of last resort and is invoked only when no other efficacious remedy is available. Since the Tribunal’s order could be executed like a decree, the Court held that the petitioner must pursue that remedy. The Court therefore declined to exercise powers under the Contempt of Courts Act. 7. Turning to the present matter, the submissions on both sides show that the dispute goes beyond a simple allegation of disobedience. The parties differ on the quantum payable and on the true import of the Award of CGIT 2. These issues raise a disputed question of fact. Such questions require a forum equipped to examine the underlying record, appreciate evidence, and determine the exact obligation flowing from the Award. The 3 906-cp-14-2015.doc Industrial Disputes Act provides such a forum. Section 11(9) empowers the competent authority to ascertain whether the Award has been properly implemented. It offers a structured procedure suited for fact finding and adjudication. In my view, without pronouncing on the rival assertions, it is appropriate that the parties be directed to avail themselves of this statutory remedy. The contempt jurisdiction should not be exercised when the dispute calls for adjudication on facts that fall within the competence of the forum created by the Act. 8. It shall remain open for the petitioner to invoke the remedy under Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Any such application shall be considered by the competent authority in accordance with law. 9. Accordingly, the contempt petition stands disposed of. 10. There shall be no order as to costs. (AMIT BORKAR, J.) 4