Contempt jurisdiction is limited to the enforcement of clear, explicit, and self-evident court directions. Courts cannot resolve disputed questions of fact, interpret ambiguous terms, or exercise review jurisdiction within the ambit of a contempt proceeding.

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Contempt Petition has been filed alleging violation of the order dated 16.03.2021 (Annexure P1); order dated 24.03.2021 (Annexure P1/1) passed in CWP-5966-2021; and order dated 26.03.2021 (Annexure P1/2) passed in LPA No.335 of 2021.

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as under:-

16.03.2021: Vide order dated 16.03.2021 (Annexure P1), passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CWP-5966-2021, whereby operation of order dated 01.03.2021 passed by the Secretary, Labour, Chandigarh Administration was directed to be kept in abeyance.

24.03.2021: Vide order dated 24.03.2021 passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in CM-4865-CWP-2021 in CWP-5966-2021, M/s Groz Beckert Asia Pvt. Ltd./respondent No.2 had been directed to file an affidavit stating as to why workmen who are members of the petitioner/Union are not being permitted to enter the factory despite this Court having kept the operation of the impugned order dated 01.03.2021 in abeyance.

26.03.2021: Vide order dated 26.03.2021 passed by Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in LPA-335-2021, the respondent Company was directed as follows: -

“We also feel it is necessary to make it clear that in terms of the statement made by Mr. Mittal, appellant-company shall register the presence of those workers, who report for duty at the entry gate itself. Those, whose presence is marked, shall be entitled for salary for the said day.”

3. It is inter alia submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that in blatant violation of the aforesaid directions of this Court, the respondents have refused to release the salary to the petitioner/the 37 workers from the month of March 2021 till date. It is submitted that the petitioners have been working in the respondent-Company, yet the petitioners have been ordered to be given paid leave for three months and have not been paid their salary from 01.03.2021. It is submitted that the petitioners have sent numerous representations to the respondent, but they have refused to comply with the orders so much so respondent/Company/employer has refused to give salary slips from 01.03.2021.

4. It is further contended that the Provident Fund benefits under Provident Fund Act and ESI benefits under the ESI Act are part and parcel of the salary. However, no Provident Fund deductions of the employees are being made, nor the employer share of Provident Fund is being deposited since 01.03.2021. Similarly, ESI deductions have also not been made. Learned counsel argues that this is a major violation of the above-said two Acts on the part of the respondent herein and amounts to violation of the above-said clear-cut directions of this Court.

5. Learned counsel relies upon three-Judge Bench judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in “Vinay Kumar Pandey Vs. Committee of Management Shri Gandhi Inter College & Another” Civil Appeal No.4007-4008 of 2020 decided on 08.12.2020, wherein it is held as under:-

“In the circumstances, unless and until the submission raised in that application seeking vacation is adequately addressed and rejected, no case for initiation of contempt proceedings was made out.

We, therefore, allow these appeals, set-aside the orders under appeal, and request the High Court to take up the application seeking vacation of the ad-interim order dated 15.07.2019 at the earliest.

The appeals are allowed in the aforesaid terms. No Costs.”

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and submits that vide th