( 1 )

( 2 )

( 3 ) THE questions referred for consideration of the larger bench are whether the Labour courts under the Bombay Industrial Relations Act and the Industrial Disputes Act and Industrial Courts under the Bombay Industrial Relation Act and industrial Tribunals under the Industrial Disputes Act are courts and courts subordinate to the High Court in terms of sec. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act and whether the Board of Nominees functioning under sec. 96 of the Gujarat Co-operative Societies Act 1961 as well as the Co-operative Tribunals constituted under the said Act are courts and Courts subordinate to the High Court within the meaning of sec. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act 1971

( 4 ) IN order to answer the aforesaid questions it will be necessary to have a look at the relevant statutory provisions holding the field.

( 5 ) II Statutory Provision: Contempt of Courts Act 1971 defines con- tempt of court mean as per sec. 2 (a) of the said Act. Civil contempt is defined by sec. 2 (b) as under:"civil contempt means wilful disobedience to any judgment decree direction order writ or other process of a court or willful breach of and undertaking given to a court"; while criminal contempt is defined in sec. 2 (c) as under: "criminal contempt means the publication (whether by words spoken or written or by signs or by visible representations or otherwise) of any matter or the doing of any other act whatsoever which (i) scandalises or tends to scandalise or lowers or tends to lower the authority of any court; or (iii) prejudices or interferes or tends to interfere with the due course of any judicial proceeding; or (iv) interferes or tends to interfere with or obstructs or tends to obstruct the administration of justice in any other manner; sec. 10 of the Act which is relevant for our present purposes reads as under: "every High court shall have and exercise the same jurisdiction powers and au- thority in accordance with the same procedure and practice in respect of contempts of courts subordinate to it as it has and exercise in respect of contempts of itself; provided that no High court shall take cognizance of a contempt alleged to have been committed in respect of a court subordinate to it where such contempt is an offence punishable under the Indian Penal Code". It is in the background of the aforesaid statutory settings that the moot ques- tions posed for our consideration will have to be answered. it is obvious that It the contempts alleged are of courts and that too courts subordinate to give High court this court will have jurisdiction to look into them and to give proper reliefs to the concerned parties.

( 6 ) III. Legal metrics: In order to answer the aforesaid questions We may at the very outset refer to the ratios of a catena of the decisions of the Supreme court and other High courts laying down the principles for deciding the aforesaid twin questions which were cited by the learned Advocates appearing for the respective parties as well as by the learned Advocates who were per- mitted to intervene at the stage of arguments in these References as they had filed similar matters pending in this court raising similar questions. In the case of Bharat Bank Ltd. Delhi v. Employees of Bharat Bank A. I. R. 1950 S. C. 188 five-member bench of the Supreme court consisting of Kania C. J. Fazl Ali Patanjali Sastri Mahajan and B. K. Mukherjee J. J. had to examine the question whether award of the Industrial Tribunal functioning under the Indus- trial Disputes Act could be appealed against under Article 136 of the Consti- tution or not. The said Article gives appellate jurisdiction to the Supreme court by way of special leave to appeal against the decisions of courts and tri- bunals. The question was whether industrial tribunal Which adjudicated upon the industrial dispute on reference made to it for that purpose by the appro- priate Government under sec. 10 of the Act functioned as a judicial tribunal whose decis