Bokaro Karmchari Panchayat Vs. Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd. and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:

.....of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside..........learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the submission of the learned counsel is imaginary and without any factual substance. the company has been struggling for its revival and is not in a position to pay the increased d.a. and as such increased d.a. has been frozen. the said measure has been adopted for the time being for revival with a clear assurance that the employees will get the revised d.a. as soon as the company regains its sound financial position. learned counsel also referred to an order passed by the supreme court of india in w.p.(c) no. 333 of 2003 and submitted that in the similar circumstance, the writ petition has been dismissed observing that the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the respondent-company for release of d.a. in terms of the scheme in case the company makes profit and is in a position to pay the d.a.6. i have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. in view of the statement made by the respondents that the company has been facing financial crunch and struggling for revival, relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. the submission of the.....

Judgment:

ORDER

N.N. Tiwari, J.

1. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a direction on the respondents to make payment of Dearness Allowance (D.A. for short) commencing from 1.1.1999 onwards to each and every members of the petitioner's union at par with the rate of the D.A. paid to the employees of the Central Government being 55% of the basic pay: and for holding the letter dated 22/23.9.1999 as unconstitutional, arbitrary and discriminatory.

2. It has been stated that the petitioner's members are entitled to get D.A. @ 55% of basic pay as per the revised D.A. admissible to the employees of the Central Government and other Public Sector Undertakings. By letter dated 22/23.9.1999, issued under the signature of the Under Secretary, Ministry of Steel and Mines, Government of India, New Delhi addressed to the Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Hindustan Steel Works Construction Ltd., it has been arbitrarily directed that the D.A. instalments announced by the Government and not paid till 31.3.1999 shall not be paid to the employees, till the company makes cash profits and becomes financially sound to make such payment. The grievance of the petitioner is that since the D.A. is a part of the salary and the same has been revised and is being paid to the employees of the Central Government and other Public Sector Undertakings depriving the members of the said benefit is arbitrary and discriminatory and the said letter dated 22/23.9.1999 is illegal.

3. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 and 2 contesting this writ petition. It has been stated, inter alia, that the respondent-Company is solely dependant upon the orders from Steel Authority of India (Ltd.) (SAIL). Due to acute shortage of orders from the Steel Plants, the cash flow in the revenue of the Company has excessively decreased. Due to financial crunch, even the salaries and wages could not be paid to 11,000 employees (executives, non-executives and other workers) all over India and the amounts could not be deposited in the provident fund. In view of drastic fall in revenue earning of the Company, austerity measures have been taken suspending the facilities like LTC, LLTC, Leave Encashment, reduction of Travel expenses on official tour, payment of TA/DA in revised rates etc. All the employees are struggling for revival and the Government has already approved conversion of plan loans, grant of moratorium on repayment and interest holiday, waiver of interest besides other measures for financial re-structuring. The Government of India for financial re-structuring and providing financial assistance package have imposed further austerity measures including payment of revised D.A. till the Company achieves cash profit and is able to make the payment the increased D.A. out of its cash profits. It has been stated that the Company has been facing hard time and shortage of funds and is unable to pay the legitimate dues to its employees.

4. Mr. Ughal, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Company has no dearth of fund and is financially capable to pay the revised D.A. and other legitimate dues to its employees, but the revised D.A. is not being paid in view of the impugned letter of the Central Government.

5. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the submission of the learned Counsel is imaginary and without any factual substance. The Company has been struggling for its revival and is not in a position to pay the increased D.A. and as such increased D.A. has been frozen. The said measure has been adopted for the time being for revival with a clear assurance that the employees will get the revised D.A. as soon as the Company regains its sound financial position. Learned counsel also referred to an order passed by the Supreme Court of India in W.P.(C) No. 333 of 2003 and submitted that in the similar circumstance, the writ petition has been dismissed observing that the petitioner would be at liberty to approach the respondent-Company for release of D.A. in terms of the scheme in case the Company makes profit and is in a position to pay the D.A.

6. I have heard learned Counsel for the parties and considered the facts and materials on record. In view of the statement made by the respondents that the company has been facing financial crunch and struggling for revival, relief prayed for by the petitioner cannot be granted. The submission of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the Company has become financially sound is not based on any material on record and no mandamus, as prayed for, can be issued by this Court in such situation.

7. This writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

8. However, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the respondent-Company for their claim of release of revised D.A., if there is any material to substantiate that the company is financially sound enough to pay the revised D.A. to its employees. If such representation is filed, the respondent- Company shall consider the same and pass appropriate order.