Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

D.MURUGESAN, J.

This contempt appeal is directed against the order dated 19.1.2012 passed in Contempt Petition No.161 of 2010.

2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the present contempt appeal are as follows. Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Limited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), a Public Sector Undertaking under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India, is having its oil and natural gas exploration and exploitation sites, both on-shore and off-shore, at various places all over the country. The Corporation was having in its employment the regular posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators, Marine Radio Operators, Marine Radio Officers, Senior Marine Radio Officers for manning the radio network and communication equipment at drill sites. The Corporation also engaged the services of "Radio Operators", as contract labour, through certain private independent contractors. The respondents were initially engaged by the Corporation to work as 'Radio Operators' in the Cauvery and Krishna Godhavari Project through private contractors on and from the year 1986.

This contempt petition is ordered accordingly. No costs."

As against the said order, the present contempt appeal has been filed.

10. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants raised the following contentions:-

(i)When contempt petitions were filed alleging wilful disobedience of similar orders passed by another learned Judge, this Court negatived the contention and held that there was no wilful disobedience of the order. However, by the order under appeal, the learned Judge has erroneously held that the appellants have committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 2.8.2006.

(iv)The learned Judge has erred in directing the incumbent Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC to absorb the respondents as Marine Assistant Radio Operators by creating supernumerary posts in that cadre, which was beyond the order passed in the writ petition and such a direction cannot be issued in a contempt proceeding.

11. On the other hand, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondents would submit that the appellants have been held guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the order of this Court only by the learned Judge who passed the order in the writ petition. Hence, the appellants cannot take advantage of the fact that a similar challenge has been negatived by the other learned Judge. That apart, the matter pending before the Supreme Court was concerning the workmen of Rajamundry, who approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the respondents/writ petitioners were not parties to the said petition, and therefore the judgment of the Supreme Court is not in respect of the writ petitioners. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge was right in holding that the appellants have wilfully disobeyed the order of this Court. In any event, the learned senior counsel has submitted that inasmuch as no punishment has been imposed under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, no appeal under Section 19 is maintainable. Therefore, the contempt appeal is not maintainable. Insofar as the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellants that the learned Judge erred in directing the incumbent Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC to implement the order is concerned, the learned senior counsel submitted that there is no additional direction given by the Court and it was only a clarification of the direction already issued.

12. A preliminary issue as to the maintainability of the contempt appeal has been raised by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned senior counsel for the respondents on the ground that as no punishment has been imposed on the appellants under Section 12, no appeal would lie under Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of the said submission, we are inclined to consider firstly the said issue. A similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench of this Court, to which one of us (DMJ) was a party, in S.C.Sekar and another v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders' Welfare Association rep.by it Secretary and another, 2008 (5) CTC 769. In that case a contempt petition was filed alleging wilful disobedience of the interim order of the Court by convening the Annual General Meeting of Tamil Nadu Mercantile Bank to elect the Board of Directors. The learned Judge in exercise of contempt jurisdiction passed an interim order restraining implementation of the resolutions until the disposal of the contempt proceedings. The appellants claiming to have been elected in the meetings sought leave to file a contempt appeal by contending that the interim order was subsequently vacated and the Court appointed an election officer to conduct the election of directors and pursuant to the said direction only, the Annual General Meeting was convened, the elections were conducted and the Board of Directors were elected. Therefore, it was contended that in the contempt proceedings, an order of injunction restraining the implementation of the resolutions should not have been passed and hence, the elected directors were thus prejudiced. The Division Bench, while considering the respective contentions and also the provisions of Sections 12 and 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, ultimately held that in case of any order having been passed adversely affecting any person, such person would be entitled to prefer an appeal, as otherwise he would be left with no remedy only to visit with such adverse orders. The Court also held that the provisions of appeal under Section 19(1) cannot be restricted only to a case of punishment imposed by the Court in contempt proceedings and such right of appeal shall also be extended where an order adversely affecting the party had been passed. In fact, the relevant paragraphs of the order of the Division Bench read as follows:-