COCP No.3088 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA 119 RAMESH CHAND SHARMA Vs ADITYA PURI AND ANR CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Present: Mr. for the petitioner. Mr. Mr.Viranjeet Singh Mahal, Advocate and Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate for the respondents. HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) 1. By way of present petition filed under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, prayer has been made for initiation of proceedings against respondents for by the Writ Court which was ev dated 03.04.2024 passed in LPA No.941 of 2023 and Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16958 of 2024 20.08.2024. 2. On a pointed query, as to whether the petitioner has received the retiral benefits Welfare Officer in the shape of in affirmative, however, raise on 26.05.2023 and submits that from the date of his termination i.e. 11.09.1996 as the 2023 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.3088 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: RAMESH CHAND SHARMA ADITYA PURI AND ANR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJ Mr. Ashutosh Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. P.K. Mutneja, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Viranjeet Singh Mahal, Advocate and Ms. Suverna Mutneja, Advocate for the respondents. **** HARKESH MANUJA, J. (Oral) By way of present petition filed under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, prayer has been made for initiation of proceedings against alleged willful non-compliance of order dated 26.05.2023 passed by the Writ Court which was even upheld in an intra dated 03.04.2024 passed in LPA No.941 of 2023 and Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16958 of 2024 On a pointed query, when learned counsel as to whether the petitioner has received the retiral benefits Welfare Officer in the shape of pension, gratuity, leave encashment etc.; , however, raised dispute in terms of and submits that the petitioner was even entitled for all backwages from the date of his termination i.e. 11.09.1996 as the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.3088 of 2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 24.03.2025 ......Petitioner ....Respondents HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Sr. JUSTICE HARKESH MANUJA Sr. Advocate with Mr.Viranjeet Singh Mahal, Advocate and By way of present petition filed under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, prayer has been made for initiation of proceedings against compliance of order dated 26.05.2023 passed en upheld in an intra-court appeal vide decision dated 03.04.2024 passed in LPA No.941 of 2023 and further upheld by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Special Leave to Appeal (C) No.16958 of 2024 decided on learned counsel for the petitioner was asked as to whether the petitioner has received the retiral benefits for the post of Labour gratuity, leave encashment etc.; he replie d dispute in terms of order passed by the Writ Court the petitioner was even entitled for all backwages from the date of his termination i.e. 11.09.1996 as the same was declared illegal by 1 By way of present petition filed under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, prayer has been made for initiation of proceedings against compliance of order dated 26.05.2023 passed court appeal vide decision upheld by the decided on asked for the post of Labour he replied order passed by the Writ Court the petitioner was even entitled for all backwages was declared illegal by MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.28 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP No.3088 of 2023 passing an order in favour of the petitioner with regard t service. He further submits that the respondents were in willful violation of the order passed by the Writ Court while denying the benefit of backwages to him from the date of his termination till to be punished under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. 3. In support of his submission upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raojibhai Patel 17 Supreme Court Cases, 184 Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik, 2024 on 14.02.2025. (supra) is extracted hereunder: “10 Tribunal appellants was held to be in contravention of Section 25 Disputes Act by the Labour Court, but the appellants were denied the payment of back wages. In appeal, a three observed: 2023 (O&M) passing an order in favour of the petitioner with regard t service. He further submits that the respondents were in willful violation of the order passed by the Writ Court while denying the benefit of backwages to him from the date of his termination till his date of superannuation and to be punished under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raojibhai Patel vs. Municipal Council, Narkhed and others 17 Supreme Court Cases, 184 and Maharashtra State Road Transport Corporation vs. Mahadeo Krishna Naik, passed in on 14.02.2025. Relevant para No.12 of Jayantibhai is extracted hereunder:- 10 In Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Tribunal-cum- Labour Court, the termination of the services of the appellants was held to be in contravention of Section 25 Disputes Act by the Labour Court, but the appellants were denied the payment of back wages. In appeal, a three observed: “6… Plain common-sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must o reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable vis-à-vis the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In s is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. The court may deny the relief of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other passing an order in favour of the petitioner with regard to his reinstatement in service. He further submits that the respondents were in willful violation of the order passed by the Writ Court while denying the benefit of backwages to him his date of superannuation and thus, were liable to be punished under Sections 10 & 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act. , learned counsel for the petitioner relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ‘Jayantibhai vs. Municipal Council, Narkhed and others, reported as (2019) Maharashtra State Road Transport passed in Civil Appeal No.13834 of Jayantibhai Raojibhai Patel’s case In Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Labour Court, the termination of the services of the appellants was held to be in contravention of Section 25-F of the Industrial Disputes Act by the Labour Court, but the appellants were denied the payment of back wages. In appeal, a three-judge bench of this Court sense dictates that the removal of an order terminating the services of workmen must ordinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured better or other employment elsewhere and so on. In such situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. f of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other 2 o his reinstatement in service. He further submits that the respondents were in willful violation of the order passed by the Writ Court while denying the benefit of backwages to him were liable , learned counsel for the petitioner relies ‘Jayantibhai (2019) Maharashtra State Road Transport Civil Appeal No.13834 of ’s case In Surendra Kumar Verma v. Central Government Industrial Labour Court, the termination of the services of the trial Disputes Act by the Labour Court, but the appellants were denied the judge bench of this Court sense dictates that the removal of an order rdinarily lead to the reinstatement of the services of the workmen. It is as if the order has never been, and so it must ordinarily lead to back wages too. But there may be exceptional circumstances which make it impossible or wholly inequitable the employer and workmen to direct reinstatement with full back wages. For instance, the industry might have closed down or might be in severe financial doldrums; the workmen concerned might have secured uch situations, there is a vestige of discretion left in the court to make appropriate consequential orders. The court may deny the relief of reinstatement where reinstatement is impossible because the industry has closed down. f of award of full back wages where that would place an impossible burden on the employer. In such and other MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.28 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP No.3088 of 2023 4. On the other hand, learned Senior counsel representing the respondents submits that having released the retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner, no further co pending as the petitioner was not entitled for any backwages in view of recorded by the Writ Court, whereby notional benefits though being reinstated upon holding Learned Senior counsel even submits that there was no willful violation of the decision passed by the Writ Court, therefore, contempt proceedings dropped. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. 6. Perusal of decision which was later affirmed even upto the Hon’ble Apex Court termination of the petitioner was be in service with all notional benefits service was granted this Court, though Welfare Officer notional benefits; 2023 (O&M) exceptional cases the court may mould the relief, but ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief must be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused denied than to the employer if the relief is granted.” On the other hand, learned Senior counsel representing the respondents submits that having released the retiral benefits in favour of the petitioner, no further compliance of the order passed by the Writ pending as the petitioner was not entitled for any backwages in view of by the Writ Court, whereby the petitioner was held entitled notional benefits though being reinstated upon holding Learned Senior counsel even submits that there was no willful violation of the decision passed by the Writ Court, therefore, contempt proceedings I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the Perusal of decision dated 26.05.2023 ater affirmed even upto the Hon’ble Apex Court termination of the petitioner was recorded to be illegal be in service with all notional benefits. However, the benefit of continuation of service was granted merely for counting retiral benefit this Court, though the petitioner was ordered to be reinstated on the post of Labour Welfare Officer holding his termination as illegal benefits; he could not be held entitled for grant of backwages as the exceptional cases the court may mould the relief, but ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief ust be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively far greater hardship is certain to be caused to the workmen if the relief is denied than to the employer if the relief is granted.” On the other hand, learned Senior counsel representing the respondents submits that having released the retiral benefits in favour of the mpliance of the order passed by the Writ Court remained pending as the petitioner was not entitled for any backwages in view of findings petitioner was held entitled only notional benefits though being reinstated upon holding of his termination as illegal. Learned Senior counsel even submits that there was no willful violation of the decision passed by the Writ Court, therefore, contempt proceedings are liable to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the dated 26.05.2023 rendered by the Writ Court ater affirmed even upto the Hon’ble Apex Court clearly reflects that to be illegal and he was held deemed to . However, the benefit of continuation of retiral benefits. In the humble opinion of was ordered to be reinstated on the post of Labour holding his termination as illegal and was held entitled for all not be held entitled for grant of backwages as the 3 exceptional cases the court may mould the relief, but ordinarily the relief to be awarded must be reinstatement with full back wages. That relief ust be awarded where no special impediment in the way of awarding the relief is clearly shown. True, occasional hardship may be caused to an employer but we must remember that, more often than not, comparatively to the workmen if the relief is On the other hand, learned Senior counsel representing the respondents submits that having released the retiral benefits in favour of the ourt remained findings only for as illegal. Learned Senior counsel even submits that there was no willful violation of the liable to be I have heard learned counsel for the parties and gone through the paper book. I am unable to find substance in the submissions made on behalf of the rendered by the Writ Court; clearly reflects that deemed to . However, the benefit of continuation of In the humble opinion of was ordered to be reinstated on the post of Labour and was held entitled for all not be held entitled for grant of backwages as the MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.28 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment COCP No.3088 of 2023 reinstatement of service upon holding his termination to be illegal was to be taken as service period towards counting his retiral benefits only. 7. Further the reliance placed upon by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raojibhai Patel contempt petition Writ Court vide its order dated 26.05.2023. grant of notional benefits instead of actual benefits the date of his termination against the decision rendered by the aforementioned decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and no such substantive relief can now be granted to the petitioner in the prese jurisdiction as the same may tantamount to exceeding the jurisdiction besides amounting to uncalled for interference in the Writ Court order. 8. In view of above, no cause survives in the instant contempt petition. The same thus, stands 9. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly. March 24, 2025 Atik Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2023 (O&M) reinstatement of service upon holding his termination to be illegal was to be taken as service period towards counting his retiral benefits only. Further the reliance placed upon by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Raojibhai Patel (supra) may not advance the cause of the petitioner in the instant contempt petition as the benefit of backwages was never afforded to him by the Writ Court vide its order dated 26.05.2023. In case, grant of notional benefits instead of actual benefits the date of his termination; he was always at liberty to avail his legal remedies against the decision rendered by the Writ Court while relying aforementioned decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and no such substantive relief can now be granted to the petitioner in the prese jurisdiction as the same may tantamount to exceeding the jurisdiction besides amounting to uncalled for interference in the Writ Court order. In view of above, no cause survives in the instant contempt petition. stands dismissed. Rule stands discharged. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (HARKESH MANUJA) 5 Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No reinstatement of service upon holding his termination to be illegal was to be taken as service period towards counting his retiral benefits only. Further the reliance placed upon by learned counsel for the petitioner upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jayantibhai may not advance the cause of the petitioner in the instant enefit of backwages was never afforded to him by the In case, the petitioner was aggrieved of grant of notional benefits instead of actual benefits of backwages and salary from always at liberty to avail his legal remedies Writ Court while relying on aforementioned decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and no such substantive relief can now be granted to the petitioner in the present contempt jurisdiction as the same may tantamount to exceeding the jurisdiction besides amounting to uncalled for interference in the Writ Court order. In view of above, no cause survives in the instant contempt petition. Rule stands discharged. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of (HARKESH MANUJA) JUDGE Yes/No Yes/No 4 reinstatement of service upon holding his termination to be illegal was to be taken Further the reliance placed upon by learned counsel for the petitioner Jayantibhai may not advance the cause of the petitioner in the instant enefit of backwages was never afforded to him by the petitioner was aggrieved of from always at liberty to avail his legal remedies on the aforementioned decisions rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court and no such nt contempt jurisdiction as the same may tantamount to exceeding the jurisdiction besides In view of above, no cause survives in the instant contempt petition. All pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of MOHMED ATIK 2025.03.28 15:38 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment