A Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable against an order dismissing a contempt application.

K.A.Swami, CJ.

1. This appeal is preferred against the order dated 33. 1992 passed by the learned single Judge in Contempt Application No.36 of 1991. The order passed by the learned single Judge reads thus:

In view of the fact that the respondent as directed by this Court, has paid the total sum of Rs.45,000 to the petitioner, which the petitioner has also acknowledged without prejudice to his right and under protest, the contempt application is dismissed. If the petitioner is aggrieved it is open to him to challenge in any appropriate proceedings with reference to the order of termination and claim consequential relief, if the petitioner is entitled.

2. The question for consideration is as to whether the Letters Patent Appeal preferred under clause 15 of the Letters Patent, against the aforesaid order passed in exercise of the jurisdiction under Contempt of Courts Act, is maintainable?

3. Appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act would lie against the order of punishment and not against the order dismissing the contempt application. Therefore, the Letters Patent Appeal is filed on the ground that the order under appeal amounts to judgment and hence the appeal is maintainable, irrespective of the fact that such appeal could not be filed under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

4. It may be pointed out here that the order dismissing the contempt application does not travel beyond the subject matter of the contempt application. The subject matter of the contempt application was the non-implementation of the order dated 7. 1990 passed in W.P.No.4535 of 1987. That was a writ petition filed for quashing the order dated 8. 1986 passed by the Deputy Commissioner of Labour (Appeals) Madras-6 in TNSC Appeal No.3 of 1982. The learned single Judge quashed the order on the ground that the appellate authority at the appellate stage had no jurisdiction to take fresh evidence to sustain the order of termination dated 9. 1982. Accordingly, the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition, in the following terms: The short point that has to be considered in this matter is that whether the original authority has held an enquiry which would enable the appellate authority to take fresh evidence. There is no dispute that the petitioner has appeared before the first respondent in pursuance of show cause notice. It is stated that the petitioner has not submitted his explanation to show cause notice, but that does not mean that appearance itself is for enquiry and that should be considered as enquiry so as to justify the act of the appellate authority to take fresh evidence and to sustain the order of the original authority. It is not in dispute that in pursuance of the show cause notice no enquiry was fixed and that the petitioner was not called upon to attend the enquiry. When no procedure was followed, it is not correct to state that there was an enquiry on 9. 1982. There is no record whatsoever to substantiate the plea that there was an enquiry in pursuance of the above show cause notice. The petitioner has appeared before the authority in pursuance of the show cause notice and the petitioner was not called upon to appear for enquiry and the petitioner did not appear for the purpose of enquiry, except in pursuance of the show cause notice issued against the petitioner. It is in this context, it connot be held that there was an enquiry on 9. 1982. That being the position, as per the law settled, the appellate authority has no jurisdiction to take fresh evidence and to sustain the order of termination. There is justification for setting aside the impugned order and consequently the impugned order is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. Rule nisi is made absolute. There will be no order as to costs. The petitioner was granted the relief consequent to allowing of the writ petition. The petitioner filed Contempt Application No.36 of 1991. The learned single Judge dismissed the contempt application, withou