Ramachandran, J.

The above appeal has been filed under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Objection about the maintainability of the appeal and defect had been noticed by the office. But, by order dated 03.03.2005, this Court had directed that the appeal is to be assigned a number and it is to be posted for hearing.

2. Mr. Asok M. Cherian had taken notice on behalf of the respondent, who is the petitioner in the contempt application. Pointing out that there was violation of the orders passed by this Court dated 06-08-2003 in W.P.(C). No.21567 of 2003, the petitioner in the writ petition had filed C.C.C.No.1712 of 2004. The background of the case is as following.

3. In the writ petition, the learned single Judge, by order dated 06-08-2003, had directed that “If the Corporation does not propose to make appointment to temporary vacancies in accordance with the rules, they have to call candidates from Employment Exchange.” It was further directed that the above will be the rule for appointment to causal, contract or daily wages employment.

4. An appeal had been filed against the interim order. The order had been modified by judgment in W.A.No.1864 of 2003, on 14-11-2003. The Division Bench had observed:

“We consider it appropriate to observe that the direction given by the learned single Judge does not cover purely casual employment. It would only applicable in cases where the vacancy is likely to last for a period of three months or more.”

5. As could be seen from the Memorandum of Charges, the allegation was that the respondent-managing Director, Kerala State Warehousing Corporation has committed and continue to commit the act of willful disobedience of the orders this Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.21467 of 2003(Annexure-A1), as stands modified by the judgment in Writ Appeal No.1864 of 2003 (Annexure-A2) and thus committed the Civil contempt.

6. The respondent had entered appearance and a counter affidavit also had been filed. A preliminary objection had been raised before the learned single Judge, when the contempt case was posted, to the effect that the application was not maintainable, as what was complained of was a violation of a Division Bench judgment. The learned Judge had however held that the contempt case could have been placed before the single Judge as well as before the Division Bench, as violation of orders of the single Judge also had been alleged. Since a single Judge is not authorized to attend to final hearing of a contempt case, but could have held only a preliminary enquiry, the objection was technical, as the natural course would have been only a reference, in case it was found that a prima facie case had been made out.

7. The learned Judge had noticed that retention of employees appointed beyond three month period would have violated Annexure-A1 order [order of single Judge.]. According to him, Annexure A-1 order cover all appointments, whether they are on daily, contract or regular basis. Therefore, if persons continue beyond a period of three months, there was violation of Annexure-A1 order, even as modified by prima facie case had been made out and the matter was referred to be heard by a Division Bench. It had been posted for hearing, along with this appeal.

8. The Contempt Appeal had been placed for orders of the Honorable the Chief Justice, and by order dated 09-06-2005, the appeal is directed to be listed before a Division Bench dealing with contempt matters. The maintainability and justifiability of the reference is therefore to be examined and the contempt proceedings will have to depend upon the decision in this appeal.

9. As referred to earlier, the present appeal is filed against the reference order, challenging that part of the order, holding that the C.C.C. is maintainable. Under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts maintainable. Under section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, an appeal shall lie as of right from any order or decision of High Court to a Bench of not less t