[2026:RJ-JP:1888-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 496/2024 Mukesh Kumar Taneja S/o Shri Ram Chandra Taneja, Aged About 55 Years, R/o E-537, Ranjeet Nagar, Bharatpur (Rajasthan) ----Petitioner Versus 1. Sh. Swarup Kumar Saha, Managing Director And Ceo, Punjab And Sind Bank, 21, Rajendra Palace, New Delhi 2. Sh. Sudhish Vajpai, Zonal Manager, Punjab And Sind Bank, Jaipur Zone, 30/31, Mohan Tower, Vidyut Nagar, Prince Road, Ajmer Road, Jaipur 3. Sh. Kapil Dev, The Manager, Punjab And Sind Bank, Station Road, Bharatpur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Abhishek Sharma For Respondent(s) : Mr. Gaurav Sharma Saraswat Mr. Ram Charan Sharma Mr. Dipendra Singh Mr. Abhishek Sharma Mr. Nakshatra Dhakar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP TANEJA Order 16/01/2026 1. Petitioner-workman has invoked the contempt jurisdiction of the High Court alleging disobedience of the final award dated 03.03.2000, which was affirmed by the Division Bench in S.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.236/2017 vide final order dated 11.07.2023 and while dismissing the appeal, directions were given to the respondents-contemnors to implement the award within a period of eight weeks. [2026:RJ-JP:1888-DB] (2 of 3) [CCP-496/2024] 2. Submission of counsel for the petitioner-workman is that award has been disobeyed in both ways, neither petitioner has been reinstated nor the arrears of back wages, as per the prevailing wages, have been paid. 3. Per contra, the contention of counsel for respondents- contemnors is that for want of availability of vacant post of ‘Peon’ in the Bank, while complying with the directions of reinstatement passed in the award, petitioner has again been retrenched w.e.f. 30.11.2023, and this time compliance of Section 25-F of Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 (for short, ‘the Act of 1947’) has been made. The back wages were/ compensation was also offered, but petitioner-workman did not accept the same stating inter alia that the back wages offered to the tune of Rs.41,566/- was not calculated in terms of the award. 4. Be that as it may, we, while exercising the contempt jurisdiction, are not required to enter into the area of factual dispute more so when a statutory remedy under Section 29 so also Section 33(C)(2) of the Act of 1947, for ensuring compliance of the award, is available to petitioner before the Labour Court. 5. Counsel for the petitioner, having instructions from the petitioner, seeks permission to withdraw this contempt petition with liberty to avail the alternative and appropriate legal remedies under Section 29 so also Section 33(C)(2) of the Act of 1947 or any other legal remedy as available in law. 6. It is made clear that in case Labour Court finds disobedience/ non-compliance of the award, in letter and spirit, which has been affirmed by the Division Bench, the Labour Court shall be at [2026:RJ-JP:1888-DB] (3 of 3) [CCP-496/2024] liberty to take its own decision without being influenced by withdrawal of this contempt petition. 7. Accordingly, the instant civil contempt petition is dismissed as withdrawn, with aforesaid liberty. 8. Notices of contempt, if any, stand discharged. (SANDEEP TANEJA),J (SUDESH BANSAL),J pcg/90