Bhartiya Samvida Outsourcing Karmchari Sangh vs. Shri Anuj Kumar Jha, Mission Director

Held

The Court held that the contempt application stands dismissed. The reasoning was based on the affidavit filed by the State, which stated that the order of the writ court was being complied with from May 2023, with a specific order dated May 18, 2023, being passed. The Court found that substantial compliance had been made by the opposite party. Furthermore, the Court noted that the original writ petition was still pending consideration before the writ court. Since the order of the writ court was being complied with, the contempt notice was discharged, and the contempt application was dismissed. The Court did not delve into the merits of the original writ petition or the validity of the impugned order dated September 8, 2022, as the contempt application was disposed of on the ground of compliance.

Facts

The petitioner, Bhartiya Samvida Outsourcing Karmchari Sangh, filed a contempt application against Shri Anuj Kumar Jha, Mission Director, alleging non-compliance with a writ court order dated January 4, 2023. The original writ petition challenged an order dated September 8, 2022, which fixed the liability for service charge and GST on honorarium paid to consultants. The petitioner argued that a meeting held on June 13, 2022, decided that employer share of EPF, ESI, service charge, and service tax (GST) payable to the agency would be paid separately from the manpower's honorarium. The writ court had stayed the impugned order dated September 8, 2022, concerning the deduction of service charge and GST from the consultants' honorarium until further orders. The contempt application was filed because compliance was allegedly not made from January 2023.

Key Issues

1. Whether the opposite party has complied with the order of the writ court dated January 4, 2023, regarding the deduction of service charge and GST from the honorarium of consultants. Petitioner's contention: The petitioner argued that the order of the writ court had not been complied with from January 2023, necessitating the contempt application. They relied on the writ court's order which stayed the impugned order dated September 8, 2022, and the earlier decision from the meeting dated June 13, 2022, which indicated separate payment for these charges. Opposite Party's contention: The State, through an affidavit, stated that the writ court's order was being complied with from May 2023, by passing an order dated May 18, 2023. They contended that substantial compliance had been made, and the original writ petition was still pending.