The High Court emphasized that contempt applications must be filed within one year of the alleged contempt, adhering to statutory limitations while asserting selective exercise of inherent powers only under exceptional circumstances.

1. The contempt petition is preferred against an interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No.32764 of 2003 and W.V.M.P.No.1084 of 2004 in W.P.No.26829 of 2003 dated 28.02.2006, this Court passed an interim order as under:
"ORDER: - These petitions coming on for orders upon perusing the petitions and the respective affidavits filed in support thereof and upon hearing the arguments of Mr. V. Radha - krishnan Advocate for the petitioner in WPMP. No. 32764/03 and 1st respondent in WVMP. No.1084/04 and of Mr. S. Jagadeeswaran, Advocate for the 4th respondent in WPMP. No. 32764/03 and for the petitioner in WVMP. No. 1084/04, the court made the following order: -
Following the order passed by the Hon'ble First Bench in WAMP. No. 1659 of 2005 in W.A.No.887 of 2005, there will be an order of interim stay of the operation of the award dated 19.12.2002 regarding regularisation / absorption of the workmen, who are respondents 4 to 189 in the writ petition. However, it is made clear that respondents 4 to 189 shall continue to be engaged in the same staus as on the date of filing of the writ petition. Notice.
2. Post this writ petition after disposal of the above writ appeal."

2. The interim order was granted on 28th February, 2006 and the contempt petition was filed on 22nd March, 2012. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended that no doubt, the interim order was passed in the year 2006 and thereafter, the respondents have permitted the writ petitioners to continue in service till the year 2008. Therefore, their services are disengaged with effect from the year 2008. Even as per the arguments made by the learned counsel for the petitioner, pursuant to the interim order, the petitioners were allowed to continue in service till the year 2008. However, the contempt petition was filed only on 22nd March, 2012, after a lapse of about 4 years from the year 2008.

3. It is pertinent to note that subsequently the main petition itself was taken up for final hearing and the final order was passed by this Court on 24.04.2012, dismissing the writ petition filed by the Superintending Engineer, Tiruvannamalai Electricity Distribution Circle, and the award passed by the Labour Court was confirmed.

4. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents states that after passing of the final order by this Court in this writ petition, the petitioners were again engaged and now they are working in the respondent Board. Therefore, based on the interim order granted in the year 2006, the petitioners cannot made out any grievances. As per final orders of this Court, the grievances of the petitioners are redressed. Even presuming that during the relevant point of time, the interim order of this Court has not been implemented, this Court is of the opinion that the petitioner ought to have approached this Court within a period of one year from the date of passing of the interim order. The limitation prescribed under S.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 , is to be adhered to.

5. The fact remains that the interim order of this Court was passed on 28th February, 2006 and even as per the petitioners, they were allowed to continue in service till the year 2008 and the contempt petition against the interim order was filed on 22nd March, 2012. This being the fact of the case, this Court has to consider the scope of the filing of the contempt petition beyond the period of limitation prescribed under S.20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 .

6. Thus, this Court has to examine the maintainability of the contempt application in relation to the limitation prescribed under S.20 of Contempt of Co