Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(4) Even if the alleged act of non-compliance of the award is an act of contempt, then the same is neither wilful nor deliberate as required under Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act;
(5) If the contention that the Code of Civil Procedure is applicable is not accepted, then the action under the Act as initiated by the petitioner is bad, inasmuch it contravenes the provisions of Article 14 of the Constitution of India; and (6) The petition is not supported by any affidavit and the same being in contravention of the Rules framed by this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, the petition cannot be entertained.

11. In Alahar's case, we do not find any reasons for holding Labour Court to be not a Court subordinate to the High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Full Bench of this Court in the case of Shaikh Mohammedbhikhan Hussainbhai v. Manager, Chandrabhanu Cinema [1986(1)] XXVII(1) GLR 1 (FB) has held that Industrial Tribunal under the Industrial Disputes Act is a Court within the meaning of Section 2 read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is true that Full Bench judgment is a binding judgment, but when the Supreme Court has now held that Labour Court is not a Court subordinate to High Court within the meaning of Section 2 read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act, that judgment of the Full Bench has not remained a good law in view of the constitutional provisions of Article 141.

41. This brings us to the contention raised by Mr. Shah that this Court should not prosecute further and drop the proceedings for contempt inasmuch as the alleged act of contempt is committed a year before. In the present case, the order, of which non-compliance is alleged, is dated 16-8-1994, which became effective immediately from the next date. This contempt application is filed on 6-10-1994. This Court has ordered to issue notice on 10-10-1994 and rule came to be issued on 15-9-1995. Question to be considered is whether the action under the Contempt of Courts Act can be said to have been initiated from the date of issuance of notice or rule? There is no dispute that contempt proceedings cannot be initiated by Court after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the alleged commission of act of contempt. There is no dispute of the fact that the action is required to be initiated after application of mind to the facts placed before the Court. In the present case, application is filed, stating all the facts alleging that respondents have committed Contempt of Court. This Court on 10-10-1994 ordered to issue notice. Under the Rules framed by this Court, any application filed by a party comes before the Court for admission and if admitted, then for final hearing. At that stage, the Court has to decide whether the matter is fit one to be admitted or not. While considering that aspect, Court applies its mind on the facts stated in the application and the documents annexed thereto. At the stage of admission hearing, again another course is available to the Court to issue notice and call upon the other side. Issuance of notice is not a matter of course. When the Court feels it necessary on reading the papers on application of mind, it may order to issue notice. Therefore, issuance of notice by the Court is only after application of mind by the Court on perusing the facts stated in the petition and the documents, if any, annexed thereto. At the stage of admission hearing, if the Court feels that there is no case made out, the Court may straightway reject the petition, but if the Court thinks it necessary to call the other side, in the facts and circumstances of the case, instead of issuing rule, the Court may issue a notice, but issuance of notice cannot be said to be without application of mind and it amounts to initiation of proceedings. Even the Rules under the Contempt of Courts Act specifically suggests initiation of proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act. The notice itself shows why the respondent be not committed to prison under the Contempt of Courts Act or otherwise penalised or dealt with for above contumacious conduct. In any case, notice suggests that the same is ordered to be issued after application of mind.

41B. Mr. Shah, to support his contention, has relied on a judgment in the case of Dineshbhai v. Kripalu Co-op. Housing Society . In our opinion, the observations made in the said judgment on the contrary supports our view. The same reads as under:

19. The conclusion which we record, therefore, is that no contempt proceedings can be initiated by a Court after the expiry of a period of one year from the date of the alleged commission of contempt. Action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 can be taken if the Court has applied its mind and initiated proceedings by passing some order within a period of one year from the date of the alleged act of contempt. If an application for taking action under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is filed within a period of one year from the date of the alleged commission of contempt, but the Court has passed no order thereon before expiry of one year from the said date, such application automatically fails and the jurisdiction of the Court is barred because Court did not apply its mind to the complaint or information within a period of one year. It is this application of mind by the Court which amounts to initiation of proceedings within the meaning of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 (Emphasis supplied).