A person with knowledge of a Court's order may be liable for contempt of Court for violating or disobeying such order, even if not a party to the proceedings. However, if the alleged contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code, the Court may exercise its discretionary powers and leave the case for trial before a criminal Court.

( 1 ) ON July 21, 1972 a rule was issued by this Court in Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction on the application of some workmen of the Kalyani Spinning Mills Ltd, Kalyani (hereinafter referred to as the Company) commanding the State of West Bengal and its servants as also the Company and its officers to show cause why a writ in the nature of Mandamus should not be issued directing them to act according to law and to ensure safety of the petitioners and other workers so that they could join their duties without fear, prevention and hindrance and also commanding other workmen of the company named in the petition not to interfere with the rights of the petitioners to join their duties without hindrance and obstruction and with their free movements. An interim order was passed on the same day to the following effect: 'there will be an interim order upon respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 to act in accordance with law and to ensure safety of the petitioners movements so that they can attend their duties, until further orders. " The respondents Nos. 3, 4 and 5 in rule are respectively the District Magistrate Nudia, Sub-Divisional Officer Ranaghal, and, Officer-in-charge, Kalyani Police Station.

( 2 ) THE petitioners' case in brief is that since last general election in March 1972, a political party backed by police and antisocial elements had been preventing a section of workers of the company from joining their duties and earning their livelihood. There had been systematic cases of assault and torture on the workmen preventing them from reporting to their duties. The said party had been indulging in such activities for breaking the Kalyani Spinning Mills Employees' Union forcing its members to leave their Union and join its union newly formed. The further object was to deprive the workmen of their livelihood for compelling them to leave then service in the company while tbe police and local management were not taking any steps to prevent such illegal acts. In spite of representation and discussions at meeting held by the District Magistrate the Police auhorities had taken no steps for ensuring the security of the workmen against the unlawful activities. The petitioners alleged that they were systematically prevented from joining their duties by the workmen respondents Nos. 10 to 27 aided by others and in all likelihood would be losing their service leading to starvation with their families. The situation had become precarious during last five months and the respondents Nos. 1 to 9 had taken no steps as enjoined under the law. In these circumstances the petition was moved in this Court whereon the rule and the interim order as stated above were issued and the said rule is pending.

( 3 ) ON November 17, 1972 the petitioners moved an application for contempt for committing to prison or to suitably punish the respondents to the contempt petition--the officers of the Company, as also workers of the Company and others who are not parties to the petition--on the allegations made therein. The Court directed service of notice of the application by the petitioners along with copy of the application and the respondents Nos. 6 to 23, as also respondents Nos. 27 to 46 and 50 in the contempt application have entered appearance and filed two sets of affidavit-in-opposition while respondents Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5 have also appeared and filed separate affidavits-in-opposition. The petitioners also filed an affidavit-in-reply to the said affidavits.

( 4 ) IN the application for contempt the petitioners alleged that all the respondents therein (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) had knowledge of the interim order passed by this Court as stated above. On August 7, 1972 respondents Nos. 6 to 23 aided and abetted by respondents Nos. 24 to 50 who are not parties to the rule violated the interim order by preventing the petitioners who were inside the factory, from entering the mills and joining their duty. The respondents Nos. 1 to