Deliberate non-compliance with court directions can lead to conviction for willful disobedience of the court's orders.

Rajesh Balia, J.-This contempt petition and the reply submitted thereto by Respondent No. 2 shows the casual and cavalier fashion in which the respondents have treated and dealt with the directions issued by this Court.

2. Way back in 1986 in a petition filed in 1984, the applicant was dismissed from service by respondent Corporation which was subjected to SB Civil Writ Petition No. 305/84. The applicant was a

driver and was employed by the respondent Corporation to ply its vehicle. The appellate order of affirming the punishment was found to be bad and this Court by order dated 10.06.1986 quashed and set aside the appellate order dated 22.02.1984 and directed the appellate authority to decide the matter afresh by a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner was directed to remain present himself before the appellate authority on 31.07.1986 which he duly complied with.

3. No order having been passed in appeal, therefore, the petitioner under mistaken advice took recourse to industrial disputes challenging the order of punishment and reference was made to the Labour Court. The Labour Court made an award on 09.04.1999, it found that since the matter has already been sub judiced before the High Court and orders are made, the adjudication of the dispute about validity of the termination order is barred by constructive res judicata.

4. Against the award of Labour Court, another writ petition was preferred by the applicant as SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1076/2000 praying therein for quashing the award of Labour Court. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge on 25.04.2000 and in the special appeal preferred against that order, the Division Bench made the following order on 22.09.2004:-

“Learned Counsel for the respondents submits that there is every likelihood of appeal having been decided upto now. The appeal is said to have been filed in the year 1986 it cannot be expected to remain pending but since the record is not traceable, definite information is not coming forthwith. Learned Counsel for the appellant submits that his appeal has not been decided as per his information. In view of the above, if appeal has not been decided, the same may be decided forthwith. It is directed that the appeal if decided, the result may be communicated to the appellant, otherwise, if the same has not been decided, the same be decided after reconstruction of the record. The appellant will co-operate with the respondents for reconstruction of the record.”

5. From scrutiny of the record of the writ petition, we further find that the Corporation too was represented before the Labour Court though its representative and the Corporation had objected to maintainability of the industrial dispute by relying on the decision of this Court dated 10.07.1986 passed in the earlier writ petition referred to above.

6. This unmistakably discloses that throughout the proceedings since passing of the order dated 10.07.1986 the respondents were aware about setting aside of the appellate order and directions for deciding the appeal after hearing the incumbent and by making a reasoned speaking order. In spite of all these facts and enquiry after making of the order by the Division Bench of this Court on 22.09.2004, the departmental appeal was not decided by the appellate authority. It has never been the case of the respondents anywhere that in pursuance of the order dated 010.1986, the appellate authority decided the appeal.

7. Yet on 07.03.2005, a letter was addressed to the applicant that he will inform whether he has preferred any appeal in 1986 against order of punishment as if directions were issued by this Court to file appeal afresh and only then it was required to be considered by the appellate authority. Apparently, this communication was in callous disregard of the directions issued by this Court which was well within the knowledge of the appellate authority on the date the letter was