Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

"2. Order of reinstatement became effective immediately on the next day of the order. Question in this case is whether non-compliance of the order of reinstatement in service amounts to contempt of court or not ? If the said order of reinstatement is not complied wilfully and without any justifiable cause, it may amount to contempt of court which passed the order, provided further that that court is a court subordinate to High Court as contemplated under sec. 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. However, question still remains to be considered whether the wilful non-compliance of the order of reinstatement would amount to recurring contempt for every day till it is complied with and thus can it be said to be a continuing breach of the order to constitute contempt of court so as to circumvent the provisions of sec. 20 of the Act. Answer to this, in our opinion, is in negative. Wilful non-compliance, if any, to constitute contempt of court, is the non- compliance of order of reinstatement. The said order of reinstatement is required to be complied with immediately from the next day. If the same is not complied with wilfully and/or without excusable cause, non-compliance may constitute contempt of court. Suppose non-compliance of order to reinstate is an omission which amounts to an act of contempt, can the defaulter be prosecuted for every day's non- compliance ? Will every day prosecution be not barred by principle of autrefois acquit or autrefois convict ? In our opinion, non-reinstatement does not give a fresh cause for every day of breach. If the said order is not complied with, when is it required to be complied with, if not on the next day of the order ? The act of omission if amounts to contempt and he is punished for the same, can he again be dealt with for contempt for non-compliance of that order for subsequent days ? If a person is held guilty of contempt of court for non-compliance of order of reinstatement, then he is punished and is directed to purge the contempt. The defaulter undergoes punishment but does not comply with direction to purge. Then, what shall be the consequential effect ? Should this process go on for every non-compliance and the defaulter be punished every time and directed to employ ? In our opinion, no. Reinstatement order if not carried out, the employee gets a right to salary and such salary can be recovered by process of law, be even by distress. Principle of service jurisprudence is that a contract of personal service cannot be specifically enforced. Employee would be entitled to salary for the same, as if he is in employment and the same can be recovered by way of execution against person or property or by revenue process, if permissible under law. However, defaulter cannot be prosecuted every day for each day's breach of non-compliance of order of reinstatement, as order of reinstatement does not stand renewed every day. Thus, non-compliance of order of reinstatement is not a continuing wrong. Hence, there is no recurring or continuing breach. Therefore, if one wants to take action under the Contempt of Courts Act for wilful defiance or disobedience of the order to reinstate, then action should be initiated in compliance of sec. 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. Sec. 20 contemplates action to be initiated within one year. It reads as under:-

13. Article 215 of the Constitution of India empowers every High Court to punish contempt of Court subordinate to it, but Contempt of Courts Act lays down how that power is to be exercised. Article 215 and provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act have to be read together. The Hon'ble Apex Court has emphasized that Section 20 applies to civil and criminal contempts and would also apply to the contempt committed on the face of High Court or the Supreme Court or even Subordinate Courts. Where there is a limitation for initiation of proceedings of contempt under Section 20 of the Act, the Rules of Code provide that no notice shall be issued if more than one year has lapsed from the alleged act of contempt.

17. The Supreme Court of India held in this regard that the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 must be that the action initiated either by filing of an application or by the Court issuing notice suo moto, within a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. No doubt, the High Court is not powerless even when the period of one year is expired from the date of alleged violation of Court's order, the Courts can exercise its inherent power under Article 215 of the Constitution of India. However, such powers ought to be exercised only on exceptional circumstances, more so to mitigate the gross in justice if any occurred and the inherent powers ought to be exercised sparingly and not in a routine manner. The High Courts cannot make the limitation period prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt Courts Act illusory. The limitation prescribed under Section 20 is to be scrupulously followed in all cases and the provisions as to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India. One step further this Court has to emphasize that the Contempt of Courts Act is a Special Act and the same will prevail in respect of filing of the contempt application under the very same Act. The general powers conferred under the Constitution has to be read along with the provisions of the contempt of Courts Act. The Act is to be construed as the procedure for initiating contempt contemplated, by virtue of the powers conferred under the constitution.

wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has elaborately discussed all these circumstances. The ultimate interpretation would be that the limitation prescribed under Section 20 has to be read harmoniously along with Article 215 of the Constitution of India.

27. The High Court's cannot invoke the powers under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, in all the cases by entertaining the contempt application beyond the period of one year, so as to dilute or eradicate the law prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. All contempt applications ought to be filed within the period of limitation prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. The High Court on exceptional circumstances, on arriving a conclusion that a gross injustice to the society or the case is of public importance, then the inherent powers provided under Article 215 of the Constitution of India, can be exercised without reference to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. A litigant may come out with an interpretation that an injustice is caused to all the orders or judgements passed by the High Courts. Such a general proposition, as advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner deserves no merit consideration. No doubt, the litigants approach the Court to get justice, that does not mean that all the contempt applications have to be entertained after a period of one year prescribed under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Generalisation in this regard can never be encouraged. What exactly the circumstances warranting interference under Article 215 of the Constitution of India has to be decided judiciously and applying the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing in each and every case. General application in this regard is certainly impermissible and Courts have to interpret these provisions in a pragmatic way than in a general manner. In other words, the principles of constructive interpretation is to be adopted while interpreting the period of limitation under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act as well as Article 215 of the Constitution of India. Thus, this Court is not inclined to consider the arguments advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner by citing the above judgement of the Hon'ble Supreme Court."