SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2012 Supreme(Del) 1621

HIGH COURT OF DELHI
G.P. MITTAL, J.
All India ITDC Workers Union (Regd) & Others
Versus
B.K. Sinha & Others
CONT.CAS(C). 292 of 2007
Decided On : 02-07-2012

Advocates Appeared:
For the Petitioners:Ms. Maninder Acharya with Yashish Chandra, Advocates.
For the Respondents:B.B. Sawhney, Sr. Advocate with Sunil Kumar, Amit Seth, Advocates.

The main legal point established in the judgment is that for holding a person guilty of contempt of court, there has to be willful and contumacious violation of the court order. The powers under the Contempt of Courts Act must be used with utmost care and caution.

Headnote:

Contempt of Court - Contractual Employment - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - [CONTEMPT OF COURT] - [CONTRACTUAL EMPLOYMENT] - [Contempt of Courts Act, 1971] - [Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971]

Fact of the Case:

The Petitioners were employed as Cashier-cum-Sales Assistants on a contractual basis by the Respondent Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) at Duty Free Shops at various airports. They alleged that the ITDC's action in not treating them as regular employees was arbitrary and unconstitutional. They sought various reliefs including regular employment and payment of annual increments.

Finding of the Court:

The Court found that the Petitioners were employed on a contractual basis, and their employment was extended from time to time. The ITDC's licence to run the Duty Free Shops was revoked, and possession was handed over to another entity. The Court held that there was no willful disobedience of the status quo order and dismissed the Petition.

Issues: The main issue was whether the Respondent ITDC willfully disobeyed the status quo order dated 27.11.2000 by terminating the Petitioners' contractual employment.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court considered the terms of the contractual employment, the circumstances of the revocation of the ITDC's licence, and the interpretation of the status quo order. It held that there was no willful disobedience of the order and that the Respondents were not guilty of contempt of court.

Final Decision: The Court dismissed the Petition and held that it was not a case where the power under the Contempt of Court Act should be exercised to punish the Respondents.

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mittal, J.

1. A Petition (Writ Petition (C) No.6707/2000) was preferred by the Petitioners alleging inter alia that they were employed as Cashier-cum-Sales Assistant on contractual basis by the Respondent Indian Tourism Development Corporation (ITDC) on the Duty Free Shops at Indira Gandhi International Airport at Delhi. The Respondent ITDC was running Duty Free Shops at Mumbai, Calcutta, Chennai and Trivandrum Airports as well. It was averred that the activities of the Duty Free trade carried out by the Respondent ITDC was of regular and perennial nature, yet the Petitioners were employed on contract basis from various dates as mentioned in para 4(iii) of the Petition and the contract of employment was being extended from time to time. It was pleaded that the ITDC’s action in not treating the Petitioners as regular employees was arbitrary, illegal and unconstitutional and violative of Articles 14, 16, 21 and 39(d) of the Constitution of India. They made the following prayer:-

“In view of the facts and circumstances, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon?ble Court may graciously be pleased to order appropriate writ(s) and/or order(s) against the respondent to:

(i) Declare the action of the respondent in terming the petitioners No.2 to 18 as contractual Cashier-cum-Sales Assistants as arbitrary and discriminatory;

(ii) Declare that the petitioners No.2 to 18 are entitled for payment of their annual increments like other fellow employees;

(iii) Declare that the petitioners No.2 to 18 continue to be in regular employment under the respondent as Cashier-cum-Sales Assistants with consequential benefits;

(iv) Award the cost of this petition in favour of the petitioners herein and against the respondent;

(v) May also pass any further order(s) as be deemed just and proper to meet the ends of justice.”

2. Along with the Writ Petition (C) No.6707/2000, an Application under Section 151 CPC was filed by the Petitioners seeking interim relief against the termination of their services before the end of their contractual employment as they (the Petitioners) apprehended that the Respondent (ITDC) might be prejudiced by filing of the Petition against them.

3. The learned Single Judge of this Court while issuing notice to the Respondent(ITDC) to show cause as to why the Petition be not admitted, directed the Respondent to maintain status quo. During pendency of the Petition, CM. No.1061/2007 was preferred by the ITDC on 17.01.2007 for disposal of the Writ Petition as having become infructuous and/vacation of the status quo order dated 27.11.2000 on the ground that on 30.06.2006 the successor in interest of International Airport Authority of India i.e. M/s. Delhi International Airport Pvt. Ltd. (DIAL) entered into a fresh licensing agreement with the ITDC for running Duty Free Shops till 31.12.2006. By a communication dated 28.11.2006 DIAL called upon ITDC to wind up its operations and hand over possession of Duty Free Shops at the Indira Gandhi International Airport (IGI Airport) by the closing hours of 31.12.2006. Subsequently, time was extended up to 18.01.2007 to remove its belongings and hand over possession. Letter dated 28.11.2006 written by DIAL to the Vice President of the Respondent (ITDC) is extracted hereunder:

“November 28, 2006

To,

Mr. N.K. Piplani,

Vice President,

India Tourism Development Corporation Ltd.,

Ashok International Trade Division,

JeevenVihar, 5th Floor,

3, Sansad Marg,

New Delhi-110001

Dear Mr. Piplani,

Kindly refer to your letter no.AITD/DIAL/2006, dated 13th November, 2006, seeking an

extension of the license for operation of the duty free shops beyond 31st December, 2006, the date of expiry of the licence. At the outset we state that there is no provision for extension of the above license under the license agreement dated 30th Jun3, 2006, entered into between Delhi International Airport Private Limited (“DIAL”) and M/s India Tourism Development Corporation Limited(“ITDC”) and in any case we express our in

























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top