Full Judgment
G.T. Nanavati, C.J.
1. By this application filed under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, the applicant-Union representing the workmen-moves this Court to initiate contempt proceedings against the opposite party - employer - on the ground that the employer has wilfully disobeyed the order passed by this Court on July 27, 1994 in Writ Petition No. 2697 of 1993. In that petition the employer has challenged the award passed by the Industrial Tribunal directing reinstatement of the workmen. This Court, while staying operation of the award pending final decision of the petition, had directed the employer to comply with the provisions of Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act. Three weeks time was granted to comply with the same.
2. What is contended on behalf of the applicant is that even though the workmen have filed affidavits stating that they were not gainfully employed during the relevant period, the employer is not paying them their wages and thus it has committed civil contempt of this Court.
3. The order passed by the learned single Judge was challenged in appeal. The direction given to the employer was set aside as there was no material before the learned single Judge at that time to show that the workmen were not gainfully employed during the relevant period. It was only declared that notwithstanding the order of stay the employer is liable to comply with the provisions of Section 17B. Now the Union has filed affidavits of workmen before the learned single Judge but it has not obtained a further order on the basis of those affidavits. In these circumstances, we do not think it proper to initiate contempt proceedings against the employer as it is well-settled that no one should be punished for contempt unless there is clear breach of the Court's order or direction.
4. In our opinion, the proper thing to do for the Court while granting stay in a petition which attracts Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, is to make the stay subject to the provisions of Section 17B; and not to give straightaway a direction to comply with the requirement of payment of wages, unless at that stage there are affidavits and there is no material to the contrary to show that the workman was or is not gainfully employed meanwhile. Such an order should be passed only after such material is placed before the Court and the Court is satisfied about the material placed before it by the workman.
5. In the result, this petition for initiating contempt proceedings is rejected. It will be open to the complainant to approach the learned single Judge to record a finding on the basis of the affidavits already filed and seek further orders by way of direction to the employer to pay the wages.