High Court of Judicature at Madras
D. MURUGESAN & K.K. SASIDHARAN
Sudhir Vasudeva Chairman & Managing Director Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited, New Delhi & Others
Versus
M. George Ravi Shekeran & Others
CONTEMPT APPEAL NO.2 OF 2012
Decided on: 11-07-2012
(B)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(70 of 1971)-Sec.12, 19-Contempt-Punishment-Admonition-Appeal-Maintainability-Any order adverse to the contemnor could be appealed against and the order holding the contemnor guilty of contempt and punishing him by passing order of admonition is also an adverse order against which appeal is maintainable.
In the above circumstances, as there are findings adversely affecting the appellants 2 & 3, which would go a long way in their career and may also result in entering in their service records, they will be justified in invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act to question the above findings. The learned Judge has ordered the admonition only after holding the appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt. Hence, in our view, admonition with adverse findings would amount to a punishment and therefore the appeal at their instance is maintainable. Para 14
(C)Contempt of Courts Act, 1971(70 of 1971)-Sec.12-Contempt-Order-Ambiguity-Executive-Duty- Authorities are not entitled to interpret an order/direction of the Court for the purpose of implementation and in case any doubt, the only course open to them is to approach the very same Court seeking for alteration, modification or clarification of the said order.
Law is well settled that the executives or authorities, as the case may be, are not entitled to interpret an order/direction for the purpose of implementation. In case any doubt is entertained, the only course open to them is to approach the very same Court seeking for alteration, modification or clarification of the said order. If such a right to interpret the Court’s order is given to the executives or authorities, that will undermine the order of the Court which may result in defeating the rights of the parties who have secured such orders. Para 18
D.MURUGESAN, J.
1. This contempt appeal is directed against the order dated 19.1.2012 passed in Contempt Petition No.161 of 2010.
2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present contempt appeal are as follows. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, is having its oil and natural gas exploration and exploitation sites, both on-shore and off-shore, at various places all over the country. The Corporation was having in its employment the regular posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators, Marine Radio Operators, Marine Radio Officers, Senior Marine Radio Officers for manning the radio network and communication equipment at drill sites. The Corporation also engaged the services of "Radio Operators", as contract labour, through certain private independent contractors. The respondents were initially engaged by the Corporation to work as 'Radio Operators' in the Cauvery and Krishna Godhavari Project through private contractors on and from the year 1986.
3. While they were functioning as such, the Central Government, in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, issued a notification dated 8.9.1994, prohibiting the employment of contract labour in various works in the establishment of the Corporation, which included the work of Radio Operators also. Hence, the respondents filed writ petitions being W.P.Nos.15211 of 1991 and 1178 of 1996, in this Court seeking for a direction to the Corporation to treat them on par with the regular "Marine Assistant Radio Operators" and extend the scale of pay and other benefits as given to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators on the ground that their qualification and experience are no less than the Marine Assistant Radio Operators and further the nature of work was also the same. The said writ petitions were allowed in view of the notification dated 8.9.1994 issued by the Central Government and also in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory Corporation Ltd. v. United Labour Union and others (1997) 7 SCC 377. The said order was challenged in W.A.Nos.389 and 398 of 1997 by the Corporation and a Division Bench of this Court, vide order dated 15.7.1997, dismissed the writ appeals. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition was preferred before the Supreme Court and the same was disposed of by order dated 12.1.98 in the following manner:-
"Mr.V.R.Reddy, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the petitioner states that those of the 56 workmen who are found to be qualified in terms of the appropriate regulations, as in force at the relevant time, shall be absorbed as contemplated by the judgment in Air India Statutory Corporation & ors. vs. United Labour Union & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 377. In view of this statement the SLP does not survive and is disposed of."
4. The respondents were thereafter absorbed as "Junior Helpers" vide the communication of the Corporation dated 2.4.98 with effect from 29.1.97 and their pay was fixed at Rs.2,282/- at old basic bottom of Class IV employees of the Corporation and they were posted at Karaikal and Rajamundry stations. The respondents filed a contempt petition before the Supreme Court alleging wilful disobedience of the order dated 12.1.98. However, the same was withdrawn with liberty to move the High Court for appropriate relief. In the meantime, the one-man Committee appointed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas to look into the grievance of the respondents also submitted its detailed report recommending that the respondents should be absorbed in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator with effect from 8.9.1994 in the then prevailing pay scale of Rs.595-20-755-25-930-1140. But the Corporation did not implement the recommendations of the Committee. The grievance of the respondents is tha
3. Purshotam Dass Goel v. Justice B.S.Dhillon, (1978) 2 SCC 370
4. Union of India and others v. Mario Cabrele Sa
5. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v. S.C.Sekar and others
6. Maninderjit Singh Bitta v. Union of India
7. Anil Ratan Sarkar and others v. Hirak Ghosh and others
SupremeToday
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.