Back
2004 Supreme(Gau) 125
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GAUHATI
Biplab Kumar Sharma, J.
Rakhal Ch. Dey and Ors. – Appellants
Vs.
Dr. Surendra Nath Sarma and Ors. – Respondent
Cont. Case (C) No. 175 of 2000
Decided On: 20.02.2004
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: A.K. Bhattacharyya and R.D. Lal, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: S. Dutta and M. Choudhury, Advs.
Contempt jurisdiction should be sparingly used and cannot be invoked unless there is substantial interference with the due course of justice.
Headnote:
Contempt of Court - Wages Dispute - Civil Rule No. 6616/1998 - [Ancillary Labour, Payment of Wages, Violation of Court Order] - The court discussed the provisions of the Rules related to payment of wages and the interpretation of the court's order dated 7.4.1999. The court emphasized that contempt jurisdiction should be sparingly used and cannot be invoked unless there is substantial interference with the due course of justice. The court held that there was no willful or deliberate violation of the order dated 7.4.1999 and dismissed the contempt petition.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioners alleged that the respondents violated the court's order by not paying wages to the petitioners as directed. The respondents denied the allegations and stated that they had already paid the wages as per the rules.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that there was no willful or deliberate violation of the order dated 7.4.1999 and dismissed the contempt petition.
Issues: Violation of court order, Payment of wages, Interpretation of court's direction
Ratio Decidendi: Contempt jurisdiction should be sparingly used and cannot be invoked unless there is substantial interference with the due course of justice. The court will not exercise it upon a mere question of propriety nor as a cloak to invite a decision on an important disputed and collateral question of fact.
Final Decision: The contempt petition was dismissed without awarding any costs.
B.K. Sharma, J.
1. Alleging violation of the order dated 7.4.1999 passed in C.R No. 6616/1998 the contempt application has been filed. The said order dated 7.4.1999 is quoted below :
"Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appears for the Respondents Perused the writ petition and the document annexed, specially Annexure 14, a certificate issued by the Depot-in-charge, FCI Gossaigaon certifying that the petitioners have been working since 22.5.1986 as ancillary labours in the godown of FCI, at Gossaigaon and even now working as such. The learned counsel for the writ petitioners submits that although the writ petitioners are working as ancillary labourers, their wages have not been paid.
In view of the submission as above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction that the respondent Nos. 4, 5, 6 and 7 shall examine the claim of the writ petitioners and make payment of the arrears of wages as payable to them in accordance with law within a period of one month from the day a copy of this order is furnished to them by the petitioners. No costs."
2. As per the said direction the four respondents as indicated in the order were to examine the claim of the writ petitioners for payment of the arrears of wages as payable to them in accordance with law within a period of one month from the date of furnishing a copy of the order.
3. As per the averments made in the contempt petition a copy of the order dated 7.4.1999 was served on the Respondents on 9.4.1999 followed by further representation which, however, yielded no result. As against the period of time fixed in the aforesaid order dated 7.4.1999 the petitioners were paid their wages at a later point of time. However, nothing has been stated as to when such payments were made. In this connection Paragraph 4 of the Contempt petition is quoted below :
"4. That it is respectfully submitted that this Hon'ble Court in its Judgment and order in Civil Rule No. 6616/99 was pleased to direct the contemners to pay wages to the petitioners w.e.f. 22.5.1986 but the contemners have paid wages to the 8 petitioners only and that too w.e.f.
April 1992 to May 1999 instead of paying the same w.e.f. 22.5.1986.
Further in violation of the orders of the Hon'ble Court in the above mentioned civil rule the contemners paid wages which were of course not in commensurate with the direction of this Hon'ble Court only to the 8 petitioners and the Nineth petitioner of the civil rule, i.e., Shiakat Ali has been paid no wages at all which is a violation of the court's order.
Still more, the contemners have calculated less wages then what is provided under the provisions of the rules to be paid to the departmental labours."
4. As per the aforesaid averments alleged contemners have paid wages to the 8 petitioners only out of 9 petitioners and that too with effect from April 1992 to May 1999 instead of paying the same with effect from 22,5.1986. Further assertion made by the petitioners is that alleged contemner have paid lesser wages then to their entitlement under the provisions of the Rules. According to the petitioners the said act of alleged contemners are in violation of the aforesaid order dated 7.4.1999 passed in Civil Rule No. 6616/98. Accordingly a prayer has been made for drawing up contempt of court proceeding against the alleged contemners.
5. The alleged contemners/Respondents have filed their affidavit denying the contentions raised in the contempt petition. According to the averments made in the said affidavit there is no violation of the aforesaid order dated 7.4.1999. Their stand in the affidavit is reflected in Paragraph 6 which is quoted below :
"6. That the statements made in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the contempt petition are not correct and the deponent denies all such statements. The answering opposite parties states that there was no provision of ancillary labourer in the Food Corporation of India from May 1986 to December 1991 and the casual labourers were engaged by quality control
