Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha v. Ajai Das Mehrotra, Principal Chief Commissioner Of Income Tax

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 453 of 2020In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4643 of 2019 ================================================================== GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY KALPESHBHAIVEKARIYA VersusAJAI DAS MEHROTRA, PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOMETAX ================================================================== Appearance: HARSH K RAVAL(9068) for the Applicant(s) No. 1MR AMRESH N PATEL(2277) for the Applicant(s) No. 1MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Opponent(s) No. 2MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR andHONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI Date : 25/01/2022 ORAL ORDER (PER : HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR) 1.The present contempt proceeding has been initiated for allegedviolation of the order dated 17.12.2019 passed in Special CivilApplication No.4643 of 2019 contending, inter alia, that respondentshave willfully disobeyed the order passed as aforesaid. While issuingnotice on 1.9.2020, this Court has made it abundantly clear notice wasbeing issued to only respondent No.2. Thus, continuation of proceedingsagainst respondent No.1 is unwarranted and it stands dropped. 2.Insofar as the alleged direction issued in the aforesaid Special Civil Application directing respondent No.2 to do a particular thing in aparticular manner has been examined by us and it would not detain us fortoo long to brush aside the contention raised by learned counsel appearingfor the complainant for these reasons more than one. Firstly, Special CivilApplication was not entertained and the complainant was relegated tohave recourse to efficacious remedy available. In paragraph 28 of theorder passed in Special Civil Application No.4643 of 2019, it has been observed by the learned Single Judge as under: “28.Therefore, without entering into the merits of the matter, theCourt chooses not to entertain the petition and relegate the parties tothe alternative efficacious remedy available. ...” Secondly, the direction which is alleged to have been violated and relied upon by learned counsel appearing for the complainant in paragraph 30 of the order of the learned SingleJudge would indicate that it is only a passing observation which isto the effect: “30.… … the Court notices that the petitioners have continued fornumber of years and there are no reasons not to direct the respondentno.2 to allocate the work to the petitioners who have continued for allthese years. ...” 3.However, said observations did not crystallise into direction being issued to respondent No.2 and said respondent has not been directed toallocate any work to the complainant. As such, we are of the view thatthere is no willful disobedience of the orders by the respondent No.2. Be that as it may. The contract between respondent No.1 and respondentNo.2 having come to an end on 30.6.2020, respondent No.2 is takingumbrage to contend that they could not provide employment to thecomplainant. In fact, this is an issue which is now seized before the StateLabour Commissioner (Central), Ahmedabad and Conciliation Officerunder the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is an offshoot of thedemand notice raised by the complainant with its charter of demands asto whether the complainant’s members are permanent workmen ofIncome Tax Department for being treated as such when the contract wasentered into by the Income Tax Department, Rajdeep Enterprise are allsubject matter of conciliation proceedings. Any opinion expressed by uswould definitely prejudice to the rights of either of the parties and evenotherwise, the said adjudication cannot be done in an contemptproceeding. Hence, we desist from embarking upon conducting anyroving inquiry in that regard.