An appeal against a contempt ruling is not maintainable unless it involves a punishment for contempt.

JUDGMENT

SUNDER MOHAN,J.

The Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order dated 25.09.2019 passed in Contempt Petition No.980 of 2016 by which the appellants’ petition seeking to punish the respondents for contempt was dismissed on merits and on the ground that it is barred by limitation.

2. The appellants herein filed Contempt Petition No.980 of 2016 before the learned Single Judge to punish the respondent for wilful disobedience and non-compliance of the order of this Court in W.P.No.12065 of 2008 dated 07.04.2011.

3. According to the appellants, by order dated 07.04.2011, this Court had dismissed the Writ Petition filed by the respondent herein challenging the orders passed by the Inspector of Labour under the Tamil Nadu Industrial Establishments (Conferment of Permanent Status) Act, 1981 and that out of the 35 persons who are parties to the common order dated 07.04.2011, the respondent had implemented the order in respect of 31 persons and had not employed the appellants and therefore, the respondent is guilty of contempt.

4. The learned Single Judge of this Court had dismissed the said Contempt Petition on the ground that no contempt was made out on facts; that since the respondent found that the appellants were ineligible with reference to the terms and conditions of 12(3) settlement, they have not violated the orders of this Court; and that the Contempt Petition was barred by limitation.

5. The learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the Contempt Petition ought not to have been dismissed on merits as well as on the ground of limitation; that having implemented the order in respect of 31 workmen, the respondent ought to have atleast communicated an order to the appellants as to why they were found ineligible; and that the action of the respondent in respect of the appellants would amount to contempt.

6. The learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the appellants have made several representations requesting permanent absorption; that since there was no response by the respondent, they have filed C.P.Nos.104, 93, 95 and 90 of 2011 before the Labour Court and the said Petitions were allowed; that the respondent filed a writ petition challenging the said orders in WP No.7333 of 2014 and this Court had granted an interim stay of the said orders; and that since the petitioners were pursuing other remedies diligently, there is no delay and hence, the learned Single Judge ought not to have dismissed the Contempt Petition on the ground of delay.

7. Mr.Anand Gopalan, learned counsel for the respondent, would submit that the Letters Patent Appeal is not maintainable, as under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, no appeal would be maintainable if the Contempt Petition is rejected and relied upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court inMidnapore Peoples’ Coop. Bank Ltd. , and Others, v. Chunilal Nanda and Other, reported in(2006)

5 SCC 399.

8. (a) In response, the learned counsel for the appellants would submit that since the learned Single Judge had decided the case on merits and had extinguished the right of the appellants in making a claim in terms of the order passed by this Court in WP No.12065 of 2008, the order passed would be termed as a “judgment” falling within the ambit of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and hence, an appeal is maintainable. He relied upon the judgment passed by this Court in LPA Nos.6 to 50 of 2022 dated 10.02.2023 in G.Subramanian v. Phanindara Reddy , IAS and Others, in support of his submissions on the question of maintainability.

(b) The lea