Circumvention of a court order, if deliberate or wilful, can be termed a contumacious conduct and falls within the ambit of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971.

The Contempt of Court Act, 1971 has been engrafted in the Statute Book only for the purpose of bringing in a feeling of confidence of the people in general that violation of the orders of court would not go unheeded. It is a statute which provides that if order of the courts are disobeyed, Law Courts have the power to punish the offender. It is undoubtedly a powerful weapon in the hands of the Courts but it must not be exercised without proper caution and in cases for the larger interest of the administration of justice and the Contempt of Court Act has been enacted in order to strike a balance between the rights of as individual and the interest of administration of justice. Section 2(b) of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 has used the expression "wilful disobedience or wilful breach". The Act, therefore, recognised as Act of contempt only in the event of there being a wilful disobedience. The issue, therefore, in the present context is, as to whether there is any wilful disobedience of the order of this Court?

2. It is at this juncture that the facts ought to be dealt with before proceeding further in the matter.

3. The applicants moved an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India being C.R. No. 692(W) of 1983 against the National Textile Corporation (W.B.A.B. & O.) and others having a grievance that the staff and sub-staff working at the mill premises are being discriminated against the staff and sub-staff on the Head Office. This Court on 21st March, 1986 disposed of the above noted writ application with the following observations:-

"In the result, there is substance as regard the grievance of the writ petitioners and to redress the same, in my view, would be a plain exercise of judicial power and the law courts would be failing in its duties not to come in said where the grievances have been substantiated by positive evidence of inaction or non-action of the respondent-authority, though for the interest of justice the mandatory order probably would have served best, but by reason of some procedural aspect, the matter is sent back to the respondent-authority for consideration of the matter with utmost explanation so as to ameliorate the grievance of the petitioner in the light of the observation made herein."

4. Subsequently, however, an appeal was preferred from the order passed herein but since no step was being taken by the appellants/respondents herein, the petitioner mentioned the matter before this court for implementation of the orders of this court. The respondents, however obtained an extension of time to consider and the matter was eventually considered said to be in terms of the order of this court dated 21st March, 1986. It is this order which is said to be an act of contemtuous disregard of this court's order in the application for contempt moved by the petitioner.

5. The principal contention in this application for contempt is that the respondents, as a matter of fact, has sat on appeal over the judgment of this court and in any event, deliberately violated the order by circumvention in the garb of consideration of the matter in terms of the order. Circumvention of an order, if deliberate or wilful, whether can be termed to be a contumacious conduct would be presently dealt with, but before so doing, relevant extracts of the order and the true nature and purport thereof for which the matter was sent back to the respondent authority for consideration is set out hereinbelow.

"In quality amongst the members of the staff as regards the employees of the Head Office and the Mills is the key point for consideration in this writ petition.

It is now well-settled that equal pay for equal work ought to be the guilding factors in the matter of determination of scale and grade.

Admittedly there is a desparity in the total emoluments in the matter of Mill's staff and Head Office staff.

In a socialistic State desparity of income amongst the same class of employees cannot and ought not to be allowed to continue,