( 1 ) THIS matter has been placed before us on Office note as to the maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal sought to be filed by the appellants.

( 2 ) THE relevant facts are as follows : Appellants filed Writ Petition No. 16523 of 1991 under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondents to implement the settlement arrived at dated 26-10-1991 entered into by the respondents with the Union under S. 12 (3) of the Industrial Disputes Act before the Officer-cum-Assistant Commissioner of Labour, Warangal. The said writ petition was disposed of by a learned single Judge of this Court on 20-4-1992 in the following terms :"in view of the above, there will be a direction that the respondents shall consider the claims of the petitioners for appointment as Helpers in terms of the Settlement dated 26-10-1991 which the respondents had entered into with the Trade Union representing the petitioners. I make it absolutely clear that I am not pronouncing upon the entitlement of the petitioners to be treated as workmen directly employed by the State Electricity Board. I rest this decision entirely on the basis of the Industrial agreement which is enforceable as long as it lasts. I also make it clear that this Judgment will not in any manner effect the right, if any, if the respondents to seek modification or termination of the agreement in any manner known to law. Writ petition is allowed as above. There will be no order as to costs. "

( 3 ) ALLEGING that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the directions issued by this Court mentioned above, appellants herein moved an application C. C. No. 501 of 1992 under sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 for punishing the respondents. The said case was dismissed by N. D. Patnaik J. on 14/10/1993 on the ground that no contempt has been committed by the respondents. While doing so, the learned Judge observed in the Judgment that the original settlement was called for and looked into and that it says that "the absorption of the petitioners as Helpers is based on principles of recruitment. . . . . . . . "

( 4 ) THIS appeal is sought to be filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent Act by the appellants questioning the dismissal of contempt petition. Office raised an objection that no appeal lies under S. 19 (1) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, hereinafter referred to as "the Act". Learned counsel for the appellants stated that the Judgment under appeal affected their rights and it amounts to a judgment within the meaning of Clause 15 of Letters Patent and though no appeal lies under S. 19 (1) of "the Act", an appeal shall lie under Clause 15 of Letters Patent. Accordingly, this matter is placed before us for orders by the Office.

( 5 ) SRI Bikshapathi, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants strongly contended that even though no appeal is provided under S. 19 (1) of "the Act" to a Division Bench against the order of a learned single Judge dismissing the application filed for punishing the respondents, an appeal lies under Clause 15 of Letters Patent as the Judgment affected the rights of the appellants and, therefore, it is a judgment within the meaning of the said clause. In support of the said contention, the learned counsel relied upon the Judgments reported in Mohendra Lall Mitter v. Annundo, Coornar Mitter (1898) ILR XXV Cal 236 and Hem Bala Dassi v. Sundar Shaw, AIR 1953 Cal 627 : 1953 Cri LJ 1414.

( 6 ) ON the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents placed before us a Judgment of the Supreme Court reported in D. N. Taneja v. Shri Bhajan Lal (1988) 3 SCJ 88 in support of his contention that the appeal does not lie under S. 19 (1) of "the Act" when an application filed for punishing the respondents is dismissed by the learned single Judge.

( 7 ) THE Judgment in Bhajan Lal s case (supra 3) squarely, in our opinion, covers the situation. In the said case, a similar question was raised and answered by the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document