Summary
Retrenched Jal Nigam workers sought reinstatement and regular pay through contempt proceedings arising from an order recording acceptance of a re-employment circular. The Supreme Court held that its earlier order granted preference by seniority when a future need arose, not unconditional reinstatement or regular appointment. No wilful disobedience was established. The petitions were dismissed, while services of workers already re-engaged were protected.
Issues
- Whether contempt could enforce reinstatement or regular pay absent such directions in the earlier order.
- Whether the re-employment circular or vacant regular Group D posts conferred the claimed rights.
Provisions considered
- Section 6Q, U.P. Industrial Disputes Act, 1947The re-employment preference arose when the employer proposed fresh engagement; the circular maintained the seniority list for that contingency. (¶¶ 17, 18, 19, 20)
Held
- The earlier Supreme Court order rested on the parties’ concessions concerning the circular. It contained no categorical reinstatement direction; a party’s impression could not enlarge its terms. Contempt required wilful disobedience of what the Court had actually ordered. (¶¶ 19, 20, 25, 26)
- Availability of regular Group D posts did not confer appointment rights on former muster-roll workers outside the recruitment rules. Eligible workers could compete through the lawful public appointment process. Reinstatement and regular appointment were distinct. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- The pay-parity and regularisation decisions relied upon did not supply directions absent from the order under enforcement. These contempt proceedings could not confer reinstatement or a regular pay scale. (¶¶ 22, 23, 24, 25)
- The contempt petitions were dismissed and the rule discharged, without affecting the services of workers already engaged. Pending applications were disposed of. (¶ 27)
Result
Contempt petitions dismissed; rule discharged and pending applications disposed of. Services of workers already re-engaged protected.