Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Chandra Dhari Singh, J.
Ajay Kumar Bhagat & Ors. – Appellants
Versus
B. L. Sherwal & Anr. – Respondents
CONT.CAS(C) 867 of 2022
Decided On : 24-07-2023
Contempt of Court - Non-compliance of Court Order - Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 - Section 2(b), 10, 11, 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners, members of Contract Workers Union, were employed as contractual security guards at a hospital. Their services were discontinued, and they filed a Writ Petition. The Court directed the respondent not to disturb their services. Despite non-compliance, some terminated employees filed a Contempt Petition, which was allowed. The present petitioners were denied appointment letters and approached the Court with a civil contempt petition.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the petitioners' non-compliance with the interim order was barred by limitation, as it was filed after a delay of more than three years, contrary to the one-year limitation period prescribed under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation.
Issues: Non-compliance with Court Order, Barred by Limitation
Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that the petitioners' delay in filing the contempt petition exceeded the one-year limitation period prescribed under the Act, indicating a lack of diligence in exercising their rights. The petitioners' actions did not constitute an exceptional situation and were therefore barred by limitation.
Final Decision: The instant petition was dismissed on the ground of limitation as it was filed after a delay of more than three years, exceeding the one-year limitation period provided under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
JUDGMENT
Chandra Dhari Singh, J. (Oral)
1. The instant civil contempt petition has been filed under Article 215 of the Constitution of India read with Section 2(b), 10, 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the non-compliance of order dated 30th November 2018 passed by this Court in Writ Petition Civil No. 12920 of 2018 seeking the following reliefs:
"a) Initiate contempt proceedings against the Contemnor/ Respondents and they be held guilty of "Civil Contempt" for violating order passed by this Hon'ble Court in WPC 12920/2018 dated 30.11.2018 and be punished accordingly.
b) Direct the contemnor/respondents to comply with the order dated 30.11.2018 of the Hon'ble High Court in WPC No- 12920/2018 in letter and spirit and further disengaged petitioners be engaged. to the post of Security Guard (contractual) forthwith with continuity and back wages. Or
c) Pass any other order(s), which this Hon'ble High Court may deem just & equitable in the facts & circumstances of the case"
2. The petitioners are members of Contract Workers Union, Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Hospital who were employed as contractual security guards at the Hospital through a private contractor named Good Year Security Services since 2005. In the year 2018, the services of the petitioners were discontinued arbitrarily by the respondent No.2.
3. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioners and other terminated employees filed a Writ Petition Civil bearing No. 12920 of 2018. The Coordinate Bench of this Court vide interim order dated 30th November 2018 directed respondent No.5 to not disturb the services of the petitioners. The interim order is reproduced herein:
"Issue notice.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 accepts notice and seeks time to file the counter affidavit. Let the needful be done within a period of six weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, to be filed within four weeks thereafter. On taking steps within one week let notices be served upon the respondent nos.4 & 5.
file counter affidavit within four weeks. Rejoinder thereto, if any, to be filed within four weeks thereafter. Renotify on 25th March, 2019.
Till further orders, respondent no.5 is directed not to disturb the services of the petitioners."
4. Despite the interim relief provided by this Court, the services of the petitioners were discontinued by the respondents. Thereafter, the petitioners made representations before respondent No.2 in order to apprise them of the order dated 30th November 2018 and prayed for continuance of the service in light of the aforesaid order passed by the Court, but the respondent did not comply with the order.
5. Upon non-compliance of the directions/orders of this Court, a Contempt Case (C) No.21/2019 was filed by some of the terminated employees. The said case was disposed of vide order dated 25th April 2019 directing the respondents to appoint the terminated employees. The same was duly complied with by the respondent.
6. Subsequently, the members of the Union who were not the petitioners in the abovementioned contempt case were denied appointment letters, despite making several representations to the concerned respondent.
7. Being aggrieved by the conduct of the respondents, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of filing the instant civil contempt petition.
8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the conduct of the respondents amounts to willful disobedience and stands in contempt of the interim order dated 30th November 2018 passed by this Court.
9. It is submitted that the services of the petitioners were discontinued arbitrarily by respondent No.2 on 1st December 2018 despite the order dated 30th November 2018, wherein this Court had directed the respondents to not disturb the services of the petitioners.
10. It is submitted that the respondent No.2 was employed by respondent no.1 replacing the previously employed contractor M/s Good Year Security Services through whom the petitioners
The High Court emphasized that contempt applications must be filed within one year of the alleged contempt, adhering to statutory limitations while asserting selective exercise of inherent powers onl....
Failure to reinstate and pay back wages constituted a continuing wrong, allowing the contempt petition to be filed beyond the limitation period.
In contempt proceedings, the court has limited jurisdiction and cannot adjudicate claims beyond compliance issues as defined in prior orders, reaffirming the need for independent adjudication in sepa....
Contempt proceedings cannot determine individual claims without prior adjudication; the court's role is limited to assessing willful disobedience of specific orders.
The limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act cannot go against the constitutional mandate contained in Article 215 of the Constitution. The court emphasized that the mere ....
The court must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the contemnor has willfully, deliberately and intentionally violated the court's order. If the disobedience is the result of some compelling c....
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
