GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY KALPESHBHAI VEKARIYA V. AJAI DAS MEHROTRA, PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX

MCA/453/2020

AI Insights

The case involves Gujarat Mazdoor Sabha, represented by its Secretary Kalpeshbhai Vekariya, against Ajai Das Mehrotra, the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, concerning alleged contempt of court for not complying with a previous order. The original order, part of Special Civil Application No. 4643 of 2019, suggested that respondent No.2 should consider allocating work to the petitioners, who had been working for many years. However, this was not a formal directive, and the court found that there was no willful disobedience of the order. Additionally, the employment status of the complainant's members, who were contracted by the Income Tax Department, was under review by the State Labour Commissioner and could not be addressed in this contempt proceeding.

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 677866 (HC-GUJARAT)
• Appeal Type: Others
• Pronouncement Date: 25-01-2022
• Assessment Year: misc
• Laws Referred To: Industrial Disputes Act, 1947
• Result in Favour of: Others
• Court: HIGH COURT
• Department Lawyers: MAITHILI MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: HARSH RAVAL; AMRESH PATEL; YOGI GADHIA
• Keywords: Conciliation Proceedings; Contempt proceeding; Contract; Employment; Willful disobedience
• Section: 4643

Judgement Text

"C/MCA/453/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2022 IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/MISC. CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 453 of 2020 In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 4643 of 2019 ================================================================== GUJARAT MAZDOOR SABHA THROUGH ITS SECRETARY KALPESHBHAI VEKARIYA Versus AJAI DAS MEHROTRA, PRINCIPAL CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ================================================================== Appearance: HARSH K RAVAL(9068) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR AMRESH N PATEL(2277) for the Applicant(s) No. 1 MR YOGI K GADHIA(5913) for the Opponent(s) No. 2 MS MAITHILI D MEHTA(3206) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ================================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE ARAVIND KUMAR and HONOURABLE 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 alleged violation of the order dated 17.12.2019 passed in Special Civil Application No.4643 of 2019 contending, inter alia, that respondents have willfully disobeyed the order passed as aforesaid. While issuing notice on 1.9.2020, this Court has made it abundantly clear notice was being issued to only respondent No.2. Thus, continuation of proceedings against respondent No.1 is unwarranted and it stands dropped. 2. Insofar as the alleged direction issued in the aforesaid Special Civil Page 1 of 3 C/MCA/453/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2022 Application directing respondent No.2 to do a particular thing in a particular manner has been examined by us and it would not detain us for too long to brush aside the contention raised by learned counsel appearing for the complainant for these reasons more than one. Firstly, Special Civil Application was not entertained and the complainant was relegated to have recourse to efficacious remedy available. In paragraph 28 of the order 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, the Court chooses not to entertain the petition and relegate the parties to the 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 Single Judge would indicate that it is only a passing observation which is to the effect: “30. … … the Court notices that the petitioners have continued for number of years and there are no reasons not to direct the respondent no.2 to allocate the work to the petitioners who have continued for all these years. ...” 3. However, said observations did not crystallise into direction being issued to respondent No.2 and said respondent has not been directed to allocate any work to the complainant. As such, we are of the view that there is no willful disobedience of the orders by the respondent No.2. Be Page 2 of 3 C/MCA/453/2020 ORDER DATED: 25/01/2022 that as it may. The contract between respondent No.1 and respondent No.2 having come to an end on 30.6.2020, respondent No.2 is taking umbrage to contend that they could not provide employment to the complainant. In fact, this is an issue which is now seized before the State Labour Commissioner (Central), Ahmedabad and Conciliation Officer under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 which is an offshoot of the demand notice raised by the complainant with its charter of demands as to whether the complainant’s members are permanent workmen of Income Tax Department for being treated as such when the contract was entered into by the Income Tax Department, Rajdeep Enterprise are all subject matter of conciliation proceedings. Any opinion expressed by us would definitely prejudice to the rights of either of the parties and even otherwise, the said adjudication cannot be done in an contempt proceeding. Hence, we desist from embarking upon conducting any roving inquiry in that regard. For myriad reasons aforestated, the contempt proceeding stands dropped. (ARAVIND KUMAR,CJ) (ASHUTOSH J. SHASTRI, J) Bharat Page 3 of 3 "