Contempt Appeal No. 2 of 2012 · Madrasdated High Court · 2012

5.P.Shafi Wulla Khan6.M.K.V.V.Rajasekhra Rao7.Pramod Kumar Swain8.P.N.M.Ramesh Babu9.Rajesh Rajagopalan10.M.Charless Guna Sekharan11.G.S.Sudakhar Raju12.B.K.Shankara Narayana Kutty13.R.Murthy14.Debashish Kundu15.G.Sridhar16.R.K.Krishnakumar17.R.Keerthiverman18.V.Arvind Rozario19.N.R.Williams20.M.Ulaganathan21.K.V.S.S.V.Jaganadha Rao22.Ivan Hoe Moses Taylor23.N.G.Ajithan24.C.Venkatesh25.A.Jayashankar26.V.T.Sivakumar27.V.Sivakumar28.S.Shanmugam29.B.Robert Vidya Sagar30.A.L.Zafferullah31.R.Saravanan32.Nihar Ranjan Sahoo33.C.P.Sekharan34.Suresh Ebinezer35.M.Shyam Sunder36.M.Senthil Kumar37.S.Moses Gunasekharan38.Amit Ranjan39.Umanath Prasad Gupta40.S.Dilli Baskar41.R.Sridhar42.V.S.Janardhanan43.D.Mahesan44.A.Khader Basha45.A.Thenkumaran46.Easow Chacko..Respondents/Petitioners in Contempt Petition.Memorandum of Grounds of Contempt Appeal under Section 19 of theContempt of Courts Act, 1971 against the order of this court dated19.01.2012 made in Contempt Petition No.161 of 2010 filed underSection 12 of the contempt of courts Act praying this court to punish https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the respondents for committing wilful disobedience of the order ofthis court dated 02.08.2006 made in W.P.NO.21518 of 2000.For Appellants::Mr.G.MasilamaniSenior Counsel forMr.M.Vijayan forM/s King & PartridgeFor Respondents::Mr.T.R.RajagopalanSenior Counsel for Mr.J.NarayanamurthyJUDGMENTD.MURUGESAN, J.This contempt appeal is directed against the order dated19.1.2012 passed in Contempt Petition No.161 of 2010. 2. The factual matrix leading to the filing of the presentcontempt appeal are as follows. Oil and Natural Gas CorporationLimited (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation"), a PublicSector Undertaking under the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas,Government of India, is having its oil and natural gas explorationand exploitation sites, both on-shore and off-shore, at variousplaces all over the country. The Corporation was having in itsemployment the regular posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators,Marine Radio Operators, Marine Radio Officers, Senior Marine RadioOfficers for manning the radio network and communication equipment atdrill sites. The Corporation also engaged the services of"Radio Operators", as contract labour, through certain privateindependent contractors. The respondents were initially engaged bythe Corporation to work as 'Radio Operators' in the Cauvery andKrishna Godhavari Project through private contractors on and from theyear 1986. 3. While they were functioning as such, the Central Government,in exercise of the powers conferred under Sec.10(1) of the ContractLabour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, issued a notificationdated 8.9.1994, prohibiting the employment of contract labour invarious works in the establishment of the Corporation, whichincluded the work of Radio Operators also. Hence, the respondentsfiled writ petitions being W.P.Nos.15211 of 1991 and 1178 of 1996,in this Court seeking for a direction to the Corporation to treatthem on par with the regular "Marine Assistant Radio Operators" andextend the scale of pay and other benefits as given to the MarineAssistant Radio Operators on the ground that theirqualification and experience are no less than the MarineAssistant Radio Operators and further the nature of work was also the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ same. The said writ petitions were allowed in view of thenotification dated 8.9.1994 issued by the Central Governmentand also in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in AirIndia Statutory Corporation Ltd. v. United Labour Union andothers (1997) 7 SCC 377. The said order was challenged inW.A.Nos.389 and 398 of 1997 by the Corporation and a Division Benchof this Court, vide order dated 15.7.1997, dismissed the writappeals. Thereafter, a Special Leave Petition was preferred beforethe Supreme Court and the same was disposed of by order dated 12.1.98in the following manner:-"Mr.V.R.Reddy, learned Additional SolicitorGeneral appearing on behalf of the petitionerstates that those of the 56 workmen who are foundto be qualified in terms of the appropriateregulations, as in force at the relevant time,shall be absorbed as contemplated by the judgmentin Air India Statutory Corporation & ors. vs.United Labour Union & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 377. Inview of this statement the SLP does not surviveand is disposed of."4. The respondents were thereafter absorbed as "Junior Helpers"vide the communication of the Corporation dated 2.4.98 with effectfrom 29.1.97 and their pay was fixed at Rs.2,282/- at old basicbottom of Class IV employees of the Corporation and they were postedat Karaikal and Rajamundry stations. The respondents filed a contemptpetition before the Supreme Court alleging wilful disobedience of theorder dated 12.1.98. However, the same was withdrawn with liberty tomove the High Court for appropriate relief. In the meantime, the one-man Committee appointed by the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gasto look into the grievance of the respondents also submitted itsdetailed report recommending that the respondents should be absorbedin the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator with effect from8.9.1994 in the then prevailing pay scale of Rs.595-20-755-25-930-1140. But the Corporation did not implement the recommendations ofthe Committee. The grievance of the respondents is that in the lightof the recommendations made by the Committee and also in view of thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Air India Statutory CorporationLtd., they are entitled to be absorbed as "Marine Assistant RadioOperators" at the top of Class III cadre with effect from8.9.1994, instead of as "Junior Helpers" with the pay as Rs.2,282/-at old basic bottom of Class IV, which is seven steps below inthe unskilled cadre of employees of the Corporation. Thereafter, theMinistry of Petroleum and Natural Gas, by their letter dated4.6.1999, also recommended that all the Radio Operators who werehaving the certificate of proficiency as prescribed in the R&PRegulations, 1980, may be absorbed by the ONGC in the post ofMarine Assistant Radio Operator in the pay scale corresponding https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ to Rs.595-20-755-25-9 30-30-1140 with effect from 8.9.1994. Therecommendations of the Committee read as follows:-"Having regard to the facts and analysis of thecase as brought out in the foregoing paragraph itis my considered view that ONGC is bound toabsorb all the Radio Operators who were havingthe Certificate of Proficiency as prescribed inthe R&P Regulations, 1980 with effect from8.9.1994, the date of prohibition of employmentof contract labour in the category of RadioOperator. R&P Regulations, 1980 is the appropriateregulation to decide about the category andscale in which they should be absorbed becausethese were the contract employment.Accordingly, it is recommended that all theemployees may be absorbed by ONGC in the post ofMarine Assistant Radio Operator with effectfrom 8-9-1994 in the Pay Scalecorresponding to Rs.595-20-755-25-930-30-1140 asapplicable on 8.9.1994." 5. As the Corporation failed to give effect to theserecommendations, the respondents were constrained to fileW.P.No.21518 of 2000 seeking for a direction to the Corporation toabsorb them as Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from8.9.1994 on the basis of the abolition of contract labour andas per the recommendations dated 4.6.1999 of the Ministry ofPetroleum and Natural Gas, Government of India and the approval ofthe competent authority as communicated in the fax dated 23.9.1999with all monetary and all other attendant benefits. After hearingthe rival contentions, by order dated 2.8.2006, the learned Judgeallowed the writ petition as prayed for. The relevant paragraphs ofthe order read as follows:-"32. Therefore, considering the entire factsand circumstances of the case in the light of thereport of the committee, recommendation made bythe Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas and thejudgment of the Supreme Court in Air IndiaStatutory Corporation case, cited supra, I am ofthe considered view that the absorption of thepetitioners by the respondent corporation asJunior Helpers with the pay of Rs.2,282/- oldbasic bottom of Class IV cadre was not fair andproper and certainly not in strict complianceof the undertaking given by the respondentcorporation before the Supreme Court. On theother hand, I am of the considered view that thepetitioners are entitled to be absorbed asMarine Assistant Radio Operators. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

33. In the result, the writ petition isallowed as prayed for. The respondents aredirected to absorb the petitioners as MarineAssistant Radio Operators with effect from 8-9-1994 on the basis of the abolition of contractlabour and as per the recommendations dated 4-6-1999 of the Ministry of Petroleum andNatural Gas, Government of India, to the firstrespondent and the approval of the competentauthority as communicated in the fax dated23-9-1999 to the third and fourth respondentswith all monetary benefits and all other attendantbenefits. If for any reason, there is no cadre ofMarine Assistant Radio Operator or there are nosufficient posts are available in the cadre ofMarine Assistant Radio Operators to accommodateall the petitioners, the respondents are directedto give "pay protection" to the petitioners andsanction them the scale of pay as applicableto the Marine Assistant Radio Operators asrecommended by the Ministry of Petroleum andNatural Gas." 6. Aggrieved by the above order, the Corporation preferred WritAppeal No.1290 of 2006 challenging the order in the writ petition onvery many grounds. After hearing the respective submissions, theDivision Bench by order dated 19.12.2006 affirmed the order of thelearned Judge and dismissed the writ appeal with a direction to theCorporation to implement the order within a period of four weeks fromthe date of receipt of copy of the order. 7. In the meantime, two other similarly placed workmen filedW.P.Nos.27500 and 27529 of 2006 seeking for a direction to theCorporation to extend the benefits granted by this Court to thepetitioners in W.P.No.21518 of 2000 to them also and the said writpetitions were allowed on 4.4.2007 following the order of theDivision Bench. Challenging the order of the Division Bench, theCorporation filed Civil Appeal No.765 of 2008 before the SupremeCourt and the same was tagged along with the connected Civil AppealNos.766 & 767 of 2008 and Transfer Petition (Civil) No.889 of 2007filed by similarly placed persons from Rajamundry, Andhra Pradesh.Ultimately, the Supreme Court by order dated 30.10.2009 dismissed thecivil appeals with the following directions:-"We have heard the learned senior counselappearing on behalf of the parties.Learned counsel appearing for the partieshave taken us to various documents and pleadings.On consideration of the totality of the facts andcircumstances of this case, in our opinion, nocase has been made out for our interference under https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 136of the Constitution of India. These appeals areaccordingly dismissed.However, as prayed for by the learned seniorcounsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, wedirect the appellant Oil & Natural Gas Commissionto implement the orders within three months.In view of our order passed in the CivilAppeals above mentioned, no orders are necessaryin the transfer petition. The transfer petitionis disposed of."8. As the order of this Court dated 4.4.2007 in W.P.Nos.27500and 27529 of 2006 was not implemented, the petitioners therein filedContempt Petition Nos.141 and 343 of 2010 respectively seeking topunish the officials of the Corporation for wilful disobedience ofthe order of this Court. By order dated 31.8.2010, the learned Judgedismissed the Contempt Petition Nos.141 and 343 of 2010 holding thatno contempt was made out warranting an action against the respondent.In the meantime, similarly situated persons from Rajamundry alsofiled Contempt Petiition (Civil) No.130 of 2010 before the SupremeCourt seeking to punish the officials of the Corporation for wilfuldisobedience of the order dated 30.10.2009. By order dated 28.3.2011,the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition with the followingobservations:-"Learned Attorney General for India appearingfor the Oil & Natural Gas Corporation submits thatan affidavit dated 9th March, 2011 has been filedby Shri Pradeep K.Hatwal, presently functioning asD.G.M.H.R.(R&P), on behalf of the Oil & NaturalGas Corporation.We have carefully considered this affidavit.We are clearly of the opinion that in view of thesaid affidavit nothing further survives in thiscontempt petition as the respondent has agreed togive to the petitioners benefits in terms of thesaid affidavit.The contempt petition is accordinglydismissed.In view of the order passed in the contemptpetition above, no orders are necessary inI.A.No.4 which is accordingly disposed of."The operative portion of the affidavit dated 9.3.2011 filed beforethe Supreme Court reads as follows:-"7. I say that even as on date there is novacancy in the post of Assistant Marine RadioOperator (Southern Region). However, since thepetitioners herein have sought to be treated at https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ par with the respondents in Civll Appeal No.765of 2008, Respondent No.1 is prepared to, in orderto give a quietus to the matter extend to thepetitoners the same treatment and benefitsaforesaid extended to the respondents in CivilAppeal No.765 of 2008 with effect from the dateof their absorption i.e.with effect from18.2.1998, as has been prayed for by thepetitioners in the Writ Petition filed by them inthe High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh."9. Simultaneously, the respondents also filed Contempt PetitionNo.161 of 2010 seeking to punish the officials of the Corporation forwilful disobedience of the order dated 2.8.2006 in W.P.No.21518 of2000. The respondents also took out Sub Application No.236 of 2011 inContempt Petition No.161 of 2010 to implead the incumbent Chairman &Managing Director Shri A.K.Hazarika as one of the contemnors, sincethe first contemnor Shri R.S.Sharma, Chairman & Managing Directorretired from service on 31.1.2011 and the second contemnor ShriA.K.Balyan left the organisation. By order dated 1.4.2011, thisCourt ordered the sub application and impleaded the said ShriA.K.Hazarika as one of the contemnors. By order dated 19.1.2012,after considering the rival submissions, the learned Judge orderedthe contempt petition and the relevant paragraphs of the order readas follows:-"26. This court is quite aware that thepowers conferred under the Contempt of Courts Actbe exercised cautiously and sparingly. But, whenthere is ample material on record to show thatthe contemners have wilfully disobeyed the ordersand further committed breach of the undertakingsgiven before Courts of law, such contemnersshould not be allowed to go scot-free, as it willsend wrong signals to the society, particularlythe common man who repose high confidence in thejudiciary as a last hope.27. Considering all the pros and cons of thematter, this Court has no hesitation to hold thatthe respondents 1 and 2 have wilfully andwantonly disobeyed the order of this Court andhave acted totally with an intention to causeinjury to the petitioners, presumably for thereason that they have invoked legal proceedingsagainst the respondent Corporation. However, thethird respondent, who is a new incumbent of therespondent Corporation, cannot be punished forthe civil contempt committed by his predecessor-in-office. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

28. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 arefound guilty of the offence of committing wilfuldisobedience of the order of this Court dated2.8.2006 made in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. However,taking into consideration the fact that the firstrespondent has retired on 31.1.2011, afterattaining the age of superannuation and furtherconsidering the fact that the second respondenthas acted only under the instructions anddirections of the first respondent, both therespondents 1 and 2 are let off with admonition.The third respondent is exonerated of thesecontempt charges.29. We are also informed that by this time,the third respondent has also demitted the officeand one Mr.Sudhir Vasudeva is functioning atpresent as the Chairman and Managing Director ofthe respondent Corporation. Therefore, the saidOfficer is directed to strictly implement theorders of this Court dated 2.8.2006 made inW.P.No.21518 of 2000, in its true letter andspirit, by absorbing the petitioners as MarineAssistant Radio Operators, even by creatingsupernumerary posts in that cadre and grant themall consequential benefits, within four weeksfrom the date of receipt of a copy of this order.This contempt petition is orderedaccordingly. No costs."As against the said order, the present contempt appeal has beenfiled.10. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel appearing for theappellants raised the following contentions:-(i)When contempt petitions were filed alleging wilful disobedience ofsimilar orders passed by another learned Judge, this Courtnegatived the contention and held that there was no wilfuldisobedience of the order. However, by the order under appeal, thelearned Judge has erroneously held that the appellants havecommitted wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated2.8.2006.(ii)In any case, though the directions are to absorb the writpetitioners in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operators witheffect from 8.9.94 with all monetary and attendant benefits, anoption has been given to the Corporation to the effect that in theevent the above direction could not be complied with for want ofposts in the cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operators to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ accommodate all of them, they are only entitled to "payprotection". Hence, the directions were understood by the officersin such a manner that pay protection alone has been ordered.Accordingly, they were all absorbed in supernumerary posts asJunior Helpers with pay protection on par with the Marine AssistantRadio Operators and since the order has been complied with, nocontempt would lie.(iii)When a similar issue came up for consideration before the AndhraPradesh High Court based upon the Division Bench order of thisCourt, transfer application came to be filed before the SupremeCourt since the Supreme Court was seized of the matter. After thejudgment of the Supreme Court upholding the order of the DivisionBench, a contempt petition was also filed alleging wilfuldisobedience of the judgment. When the matter was heard, anaffidavit dated 9.3.2011 sworn to by Shri Pradeep K.Hatwal, DeputyGeneral Manager (HR), ONGC was filed to the effect that thebenefits would be extended to the similarly siutated persons whohad approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court. Recording the saidaffidavit, the Supreme Court dismissed the contempt petition. Whenthe Supreme Court did not even find the failure on the part of theONGC to absorb the writ petitioners in the post of Marine AssistantRadio Operator as a disobedience, as there was no such direction inthis regard and only an option had been given, the finding of thelearned Judge that the appellants have disobeyed the order of thisCourt is liable to be set aside. (iv)The learned Judge has erred in directing the incumbent Chairmanand Managing Director of ONGC to absorb the respondents as MarineAssistant Radio Operators by creating supernumerary posts in thatcadre, which was beyond the order passed in the writ petition andsuch a direction cannot be issued in a contempt proceeding. 11. On the other hand, Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned seniorcounsel appearing for the respondents would submit that theappellants have been held guilty of contempt for wilful disobedienceof the order of this Court only by the learned Judge who passed theorder in the writ petition. Hence, the appellants cannot takeadvantage of the fact that a similar challenge has been negatived bythe other learned Judge. That apart, the matter pending before theSupreme Court was concerning the workmen of Rajamundry, whoapproached the Andhra Pradesh High Court and the respondents/writpetitioners were not parties to the said petition, and therefore thejudgment of the Supreme Court is not in respect of the writpetitioners. In that view of the matter, the learned Judge was rightin holding that the appellants have wilfully disobeyed the order ofthis Court. In any event, the learned senior counsel has submittedthat inasmuch as no punishment has been imposed under Section 12 ofthe Contempt of Courts Act, no appeal under Section 19 ismaintainable. Therefore, the contempt appeal is not maintainable. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ Insofar as the contention of the learned senior counsel for theappellants that the learned Judge erred in directing the incumbentChairman and Managing Director of ONGC to implement the order isconcerned, the learned senior counsel submitted that there is noadditional direction given by the Court and it was only aclarification of the direction already issued. 12. A preliminary issue as to the maintainability of thecontempt appeal has been raised by Mr.T.R.Rajagopalan, learned seniorcounsel for the respondents on the ground that as no punishment hasbeen imposed on the appellants under Section 12, no appeal would lieunder Section 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In view of thesaid submission, we are inclined to consider firstly the said issue.A similar issue came up for consideration before a Division Bench ofthis Court, to which one of us (DMJ) was a party, in S.C.Sekar andanother v. Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders' Welfare Associationrep.by it Secretary and another, 2008 (5) CTC 769. In that case acontempt petition was filed alleging wilful disobedience of theinterim order of the Court by convening the Annual General Meeting ofTamil Nadu Mercantile Bank to elect the Board of Directors. Thelearned Judge in exercise of contempt jurisdiction passed an interimorder restraining implementation of the resolutions until thedisposal of the contempt proceedings. The appellants claiming to havebeen elected in the meetings sought leave to file a contempt appealby contending that the interim order was subsequently vacated and theCourt appointed an election officer to conduct the election ofdirectors and pursuant to the said direction only, the Annual GeneralMeeting was convened, the elections were conducted and the Board ofDirectors were elected. Therefore, it was contended that in thecontempt proceedings, an order of injunction restraining theimplementation of the resolutions should not have been passed andhence, the elected directors were thus prejudiced. The DivisionBench, while considering the respective contentions and also theprovisions of Sections 12 and 19 of the Contempt of Courts Act,ultimately held that in case of any order having been passedadversely affecting any person, such person would be entitled toprefer an appeal, as otherwise he would be left with no remedy onlyto visit with such adverse orders. The Court also held that theprovisions of appeal under Section 19(1) cannot be restricted only toa case of punishment imposed by the Court in contempt proceedings andsuch right of appeal shall also be extended where an order adverselyaffecting the party had been passed. In fact, the relevant paragraphsof the order of the Division Bench read as follows:-"14. The next question that falls for ourconsideration is as to whether the appellants areentitled to file the present contempt appeals. Inthis context, it would be relevant to point outthat this Court in exercise of its power underSection 12 is entitled to punish the contemnor and https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ in such event, the person who visited with suchpunishment is entitled as a matter of right toprefer an appeal under Section 19(1)(a) of theAct. In terms of section 19 of the Act, an appealshall lie as of right from any order or decisionof High Court in exercise of its jurisdiction topunish for contempt. To our mind, the said sectioncontains two parts. Firstly, an appeal shall lieas of right from any order or decision of the HighCourt and secondly, such order or decision must bein exercise of its jurisdiction to punish forcontempt. It need not necessarily, therefore, meanthat only in such cases where this Court punishesthe contemnor, an appeal would lie and not whensome adverse order is passed. If thatinterpretation is given to the said provision, thefirst limb of the said provision regarding theright to appeal against any order or decision ofthe Court would lose its full meaning. Any orderor decision passed by this Court while exercisingits jurisdiction to punish the contemnor wouldmean the exercise of jurisdiction and thecorresponding order or decision. In our opinion,even in case of any order passed adverselyaffecting any person, certainly he would beentitled to prefer an appeal, as otherwise hewould be left with no effective remedy and only tovisit with such adverse orders.19. There has been no difficulty that theapplication of sub-section (1) of Section 19 tocases where the appeal is from an order imposingpunishment under section 12 of the Act. But whenthe Court had not imposed punishment under section12 and yet some adverse interlocutory orders arepassed in the course of contempt proceedings,whether the parties aggrieved by such order wouldbe entitled to invoke the appellate jurisdictionunder the Contempt of Courts Act itself. InPurshotam Dass Goel v. Justice B.S.Dhillonreported in (1978) 2 SCC 370, the Apex Courtbroadened the area of appealability of an orderwhich decided some bone of contentions raisedbefore the Court affecting the rights of the partyaggrieved-whether made at the filing stage of theproceedings or even at an early stage. In fact theCourt had observed that it was neither possiblenor advisable to make an exhaustive list of thetype of orders which may be appealable undersection 19. The said view was again reiterated by https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the Apex Court in Union of India and others v.Mario Cabrele Sa reported in AIR 1982 SC 691. Inour considered view, the provisions of appealunder the section 19(1) cannot be restricted onlyto a case of punishment imposed by the Court incontempt proceedings and such right of appealshall also be extended where an order adverselyaffecting the parties are passed. Considering thefacts of this case, as the decision or order wasmade by this Court only in exercise of thecontempt proceedings, the person aggrieved wouldbe only entitled to invoke the jurisdiction ofthis Court under the provisions of the Contempt ofCourts Act and need not necessarily be relegatedto the other provisions, particularly, intra-courtappeal."13. The above order was taken on appeal before the Supreme Courtin Tamilnad Mercantile Bank Shareholders Welfare Association (2) v.S.C.Sekar and others, (2009) 2 SCC 784 and the order of the DivisionBench was confirmed. The relevant paragraphs of the judgment of theSupreme Court read as follows:-"37. Indisputably in view of the interim orderdated 20th June, 2008 respondents wereprejudiced. They were, thus, `persons aggrieved'.As persons aggrieved they could move the highercourt. If an interim order was passed whollywithout jurisdiction, an appeal would liethereagainst. 45. Assuming that an appeal under Section 19 wastechnically not maintainable, having regard tothe fact that the interim injunction was grantedtill disposal of the contempt application, in ouropinion, it was a judgment within the meaning ofClause 15 of the Letters Patent of the MadrasHigh Court."14. In this case, factually, though the appellants 2 & 3 havebeen found guilty of contempt for wilful disobedience of the order ofthis Court dated 2.8.2006 in W.P.No.21518 of 2000, they were let offwith admonition. In this context, we may refer to the observations ofthe learned Judge in more than one paragraph of the order that theappellants 2 & 3 have wilfully disobeyed the order of the Court andthe said observations read thus:"25......... When there is ample opportunity forthe respondents 1 and 2 to absorb the petitionersas Marine Assistant Radio Operators, as directedby this Court, even by creating supernumerary https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ posts, the respondents 1 and 2 have wilfully actedin a manner detrimental to the interest of thepetitioners and towards nullifying the order ofthis Court, since by posting the petitioners assupernumerary helpers, they have denied the due ofthe petitioners ordered by this Court. Therefore,there is clear intentional disobedience of theorder of this Court by the respondents 1 and 2personally.......26......But, when there is ample material onrecord to show that the contemners have wilfullydisobeyed the orders and further committed breachof the undertakings given before Courts of Law,such contemners should not be allowed to go scot-free, as it will send wrong signals to thesociety, particularly the common man, who reposehigh confidence in the judiciary as a last hope.27. Considering all the pros and cons of thematter, this Court has no hesitation to hold thatthe respondents 1 and 2 have wilfully and wantonlydisobeyed the order of this Court and have actedtotally with an intention to cause injury to thepetitioners, presumably for the reason that theyhave invoked legal proceedings against therespondent Corporation..... 28. Therefore, the respondents 1 and 2 are foundguilty of the offence of committing wilfuldisobedience of the order of this Court dated2.8.2006 made in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. However,taking into consideration the fact that the firstrespondent has retired on 31.1.2011, afterattaining the age of superannuation and furtherconsidering the fact that the second respondenthas acted only under the instructions anddirections of the first respondent, both therespondents 1 and 2 are let off with admonition.The third respondent is exonerated of thesecontempt charges."In the above circumstances, as there are findings adversely affectingthe appellants 2 & 3, which would go a long way in their career andmay also result in entering in their service records, they will bejustified in invoking the provisions of Section 19 of the Contempt ofCourts Act to question the above findings. The learned Judge hasordered the admonition only after holding the appellants 2 & 3 guiltyof contempt. Hence, in our view, admonition with adverse findingswould amount to a punishment and therefore the appeal at theirinstance is maintainable. So far as the appellant no.4 is concerned, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ he was exonerated of the charges. Mr.G.Masilamani, learned seniorcounsel has submitted that since the appellant no.4 has beenexonerated, he is not pressing the appeal against him. The saidsubmission is recorded. So far as the appellant no.1 is concerned,being the Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC, he has beendirected to implement the order of this Court in letter and spiritand therefore the appeal at his instance is also maintainable. Inview of the above discussions, we hold that the contempt appeal ismaintainable and answer the issue accordingly. 15. This takes us to the contention as to whether the appellantshave committed wilful disobedience of the order of this Court. It isthe contention of Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel for theappellants that when similar applications for contempt came up forhearing before the other learned Judge alleging wilful disobedienceof the order having been passed following the order in issue, thelearned Judge did not accept the contention of the writ petitionerstherein and refused to proceed with the contempt proceedings. In suchcircumstances, the finding of the learned Judge holding theappellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt of Court in a similar matter iserroneous. We are not inclined to accept the said submission as thelearned Judge, who passed the order under appeal, was the author ofthe order in the writ petition giving certain directions. Thelearned Judge after having understood the directions held that theappellants 2 & 3 have disobeyed the directions. It is true that thevery same order was passed by the other learned Judge in similar writpetitions filed at the instance of similarly placed persons and whenthey filed contempt petitions alleging wilful disobedience, the otherJudge refused to entertain the said petitions. In our view, it isfor the Court to decide whether to initiate contempt proceedings ornot against the alleged contemnors, as the person allegingdisobedience is only bringing the same to the notice of the learnedJudge who passed the order. In this case, the learned Judge hasconsidered in detail and has given reasons as to why he is holdingthe appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt. In that view of the matter,we do not find that the order under appeal is liable to be set asideon the ground that similar contempt petitions were dismissed by theother learned Judge. 16. Insofar as the other submission of Mr.G.Masilamani, learnedsenior counsel that the Supreme Court did not even find fault thefailure of the ONGC to absorb the respondents herein in the post ofMarine Assistant Radio Operator at the time of hearing of thecontempt petition is concerned, we may observe that the said contemptpetition was dismissed after recording the affidavit of undertakingfiled on behalf of the Corporation to the effect that the benefitswould be extended to similarly placed persons working in Rajamundrywho had approached the Andhra Pradesh High Court with a similarprayer for absorption by way of a transfer application based upon theorder of the Division Bench of this Court. Only under the said https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ circumstances, the Supreme Court refrained from proceeding with thecontempt petition. It is also to be noted that the respondentsherein were not arrayed as parties in the said proceedings. Evenbefore the dismissal of the contempt petition by the Supreme Court,the respondents have initiated contempt proceedings before this Courtalleging non-compliance of the order in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. ThisCourt was in the process of examining the issue as to whether the socalled compliance of the directions, by appointing the respondents inthe supernumerary posts of Helpers in the scale of pay applicable toMarine Assistant Radio Operator, would amount to actual compliance ofthe order dated 2.8.2006 in W.P.No.21518 of 2000. It is not the caseof the appellants that the Supreme Court was apprised of the factumof pendency of such a contempt petition before this Court. TheSupreme Court had no occasion to consider the contentions raised bythe respondents with regard to the failure to create supernumeraryposts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators. Therefore, the orderpassed by the Supreme Court dismissing the Contempt Petition No.130of 2010 would not operate as an order approving the contentions takenby the appellants that the directions were complied with in itsletter and spirit by appointing the respondents in the supernumeraryposts of Helpers. It is the case of the respondents herein that theircase had been independently considered by the learned Judge and thedirections for absorption were given and that the same have beenwilfully disobeyed. Hence, the submission of the learned seniorcounsel cannot be accepted and the same is liable to be rejected.Accordingly, the said submission is rejected.17. This leads us to the issue as to whether the appellants 2 &3 had disobeyed the directions of the Court wilfully. By order dated2.8.2006, the writ petition was allowed and the appellants 2 & 3 weredirected to absorb the respondents herein as Marine Assistant RadioOperators with effect from 8.9.94 on the basis of the abolition ofcontract labour. That order came to be passed after taking note ofthe fact that the respondents were qualified to be appointed asMarine Assistant Radio Operators. It was also directed that if forany reason there was no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operator orthere were no sufficient posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators toaccommodate all the respondents, the appellants 2 & 3 were directedto give pay protection and sanction the respondents the scale of payas applicable to Marine Assistant Radio Operator as recommended bythe Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Gas. The learned Judge, havingnoticed that contrary to the said direction the appellants 2 & 3 hadpassed an order absorbing the respondents as "Supernumerary Helpers",found that they have wilfully disobeyed the order. 18. From the records it is seen that on entertaining thecontempt petition, a statutory notice was issued to the secondappellant herein on 7.1.2011 directing him to appear before the Courton 21.1.2011, on which date he did not appear. But he filed anaffidavit through the senior counsel viz., Mr.Gopal Subramaniam, https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ learned Solicitor General of India and the contents of the affidavitwere taken exception by the learned Judge. In the affidavit, theappellant no.2 had stated that he was to retire from the post ofChairman and Managing Director on 31.1.2011 and he was not in aposition to appear before the Court on the date fixed, as he had toattend and complete various works which are urgent and unavoidable.It was further stated that he had to attend official meetings atVadodara and the arrangement for the meeting was under way. Whenthis was pointed out to the learned Solicitor General, he hasexpressed his sincere regrets for the wordings used by the appellantno.2 in the affidavit seeking to dispense with his personalappearance before the Court. The learned Judge also noticed that thelearned Solicitor General assured the Court that the orders passedin the writ petition would be carried out in letter and spirit. Whenthe contempt petition came up for hearing subsequently, the learnedJudge noticed that in spite of such assurance, the order has not beencomplied with and therefore held that there was wilful disobedience.That apart, the directions were of two parts. Of course, in thefirst part, the learned Judge directed the absorption of the writpetitioners as Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from8.9.94. The learned Judge, in the second part, also directed that iffor any reason there is no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operatoror there are no sufficient posts available in the said cadre toaccommodate all the respondents, the appellants should give payprotection to the respondents and sanction them the scale of pay asapplicable to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators as recommended bythe Ministry. We do not find any ambiguity in the directions as hasbeen understood and put forth by the appellants herein. Thedirections are unambiguous in the sense that the respondents hereinshould be absorbed as Marine Assistant Radio Operators. However,only in case if there is no cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operatorsor there are no sufficient posts available in that cadre, then theyare entitled to pay protection as applicable to Marine AssistantRadio Operators. The second portion of the order does not mean thatthey can be appointed as "Helpers" and that too in supernumeraryposts created by the appellants. The learned Judge has rightly foundthat in the event there is no cadre strength of Marine AssistantRadio Operators, they could have created supernumerary posts ofMarine Assistant Radio Operators to accommodate the respondentsherein. Law is well settled that the executives or authorities, asthe case may be, are not entitled to interpret an order/direction forthe purpose of implementation. In case any doubt is entertained, theonly course open to them is to approach the very same Court seekingfor alteration, modification or clarification of the said order. Ifsuch a right to interpret the Court's order is given to theexecutives or authorities, that will undermine the order of the Courtwhich may result in defeating the rights of the parties who havesecured such orders. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/

19. Recently, the Supreme Court in Maninderjit Singh Bitta v.Union of India, (2012) 1 SCC 273 made the position very clear thatthe order of the Court should be obeyed in its true spirit andsubstance and in the event of any difficulties, the Governmentdepartment or its functionaries have to approach the Court either forextension of time or clarification. The relevant paragraphs of thejudgment read as follows:-"20. In exercise of its contempt jurisdiction, thecourts are primarily concerned with enquiringwhether the contemnor is guilty of intentional andwilful violation of the orders of the court, evento constitute a civil contempt. Every party to lisbefore the court, and even otherwise, is expectedto obey the orders of the court in its true spiritand substance. Every person is required to respectand obey the orders of the court with due dignityfor the institution. The government departmentsare no exception to it. The departments orinstrumentalities of the State must actexpeditiously as per orders of the court and ifsuch orders postulate any schedule, then it mustbe adhered to. Whenever there are obstructions ordifficulties in compliance with the orders of thecourt, least that is expected of the governmentdepartment or its functionaries is to approach thecourt for extension of time or clarifications, ifcalled for. But, where the party neither obeys theorders of the court nor approaches the courtmaking appropriate prayers for extension of timeor variation of order, the only possible inferencein law is that such party disobeys the orders ofthe court. In other words, it is intentionally notcarrying out the orders of the court. Flagrantviolation of the court’s orders would reflect theattitude of the party concerned to undermine theauthority of the courts, its dignity and theadministration of justice.21. In Vinay Chandra Mishra, In re, this Courtheld that:“39. … judiciary has a special and additionalduty to perform viz. to oversee that allindividuals and institutions including theexecutive and the legislature act within theframework of not only the law but also thefundamental law of the land. This duty isapart from the function of adjudicating thedisputes between the parties which is https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ essential to peaceful and orderly developmentof the society. … dignity and authority of thecourts have to be respected and protected atall costs.”26. It is also of some relevance to note thatdisobedience of court orders by positive or activecontribution or non-obedience by a passive anddormant conduct leads to the same result.Disobedience of orders of the court strikes at thevery root of the rule of law on which the judicialsystem rests. The rule of law is the foundation ofa democratic society. Judiciary is the guardian ofthe rule of law. If the judiciary is to performits duties and functions effectively and remaintrue to the spirit with which they are sacredlyentrusted, the dignity and authority of the courtshave to be respected and protected at all costs."20. In Anil Ratan Sarkar and others v. Hirak Ghosh and others,2002 (4) SCC 21 the Supreme Court observed that it is neither fairnor reasonable on the part of the officers to feign ignorance orplead understanding when the direction of the Court stands crystalclear in the judgment. In T.N. Godavarman Thirumulpad v. Ashok Khot,(2006) 5 SCC 1, the Supreme Court indicated the nature of contemptjurisdiction in the following words : 5. Disobedience of this Court's order strikes at thevery root of the rule of law on which the judicial systemrests. The rule of law is the foundation of a democraticsociety. Judiciary is the guardian of the rule of law.Hence, it is not only the third pillar but also the centralpillar of the democratic State. If the judiciary is toperform its duties and functions effectively and remaintrue to the spirit with which they are sacredly entrustedto it, the dignity and authority of the courts have to berespected and protected at all costs. Otherwise, the verycornerstone of our constitutional scheme will give way andwith it will disappear the rule of law and the civilisedlife in the society. That is why it is imperative andinvariable that courts' orders are to be followed andcomplied with.21. In T.R.Dhanjaya v. J.Vasudevan, (1995) 5 SCC 619, theSupreme Court observed that when the claim inter-se had beenadjudicated and had become final, it is no longer open to theGovernment to go behind the orders and truncate the effect of theorders passed by the Court by hovering over the rules to get round https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ the result, to legitimise legal alibi to circumvent the orders passedby the Court.22. In view of the above, the learned Judge has rightly heldthat there has been wilful disobedience in not complying with theorder in letter and spirit as undertook by the appellants 2 & 3 atthe time of hearing of the contempt petition. In this context, wemay also refer that the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operator is atthe top of Class III cadre, whereas the post of Helper is at thebottom of Class IV cadre and that too the absorption having been madeby creating supernumerary posts. This being a factual finding of thelearned Judge to hold the appellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt, in ouropinion, such factual findings require no interference, particularlywhen we do not find any infirmity or error in such findings. For allthese reasons, the order of the learned Judge in holding theappellants 2 & 3 guilty of contempt for their wilful disobedience ofthe order dated 2.8.2006 passed in the writ petition requires nointerference. 23. It was further argued that the learned Judge has issued adirection to the present Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC,namely, the appellant no.1, to implement the order of the Court.Mr.G.Masilamani, learned senior counsel would submit that a directiongiven to the present Chairman & Managing Director is beyond the scopeof the writ petition and such a direction cannot be issued in acontempt proceeding. We are not inclined to accept the saidsubmission. It is true that a direction cannot be issued beyond theorder in the writ petition. Nevertheless, when once a direction wasissued for compliance and the Officers who were serving at therelevant point of time had retired and a new set of Officers assumedcharge, naturally the direction of the Court should be implemented inletter and spirit by the successor Officer. Only in that context,the learned Judge had directed the implementation of the order dated2.8.2006 by the present Chairman and Managing Director of ONGC andsuch a direction requires no interference. 24. In this context, we may observe that the rule of law is afundamental feature of our Constitution and the right to obtainjudicial redress is a feature of its basic structure. The law ofcontempt is to secure public respect and confidence in judiciary andjudicial process. The purpose of contempt proceedings is to preserveand maintain the flow of stream of justice in its unsullied form andpurity. Any kind of act which is apparent and amounts to depriving aperson from obtaining a relief in Court would amount to interferencewith the administration of justice. The power of contempt beholdsthe Court to act with due circumspection making appropriateallowances for common human fallings within reasonable limits. In theevent a citizen is denied justice to which he is entitled to due tothe act of another, such citizen must be reasonably compensated. Evena possible attempted interference with or obstruction of the Courts https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ of justice is a grave matter which demands proper consideration andaction. 25. For all the foregoing discussions and observations, we findno merit in the contempt appeal and accordingly the same is dismissedwith a direction to the first appellant to implement the order dated2.8.2006 made in W.P.No.21518 of 2000 in its true letter and spiritby absorbing the respondents as Marine Assistant Radio Operators evenby creating supernumerary posts in that cadre and grant them all theconsequential benefits within a period of four weeks from the date ofreceipt of a copy of this order. Consequently, M.P.No.1 of 2012 isalso dismissed. No costs. Sd/Asst. Registrar/true copy/Sub Asst.Registrarss1. Sudhir Vasudeva Chairman and Managing Director Oil & Natural Gas Corporation Limited Tower-II, 6th Floor Jeevan Bharati Building Connaught Place New Delhi 110 001.+ 1 cc to M/s. King and Partridser, SR.40560+ 1 cc to Mr. J. Narayanamurthy, Sr.40344Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2012TAM(CO)EU 17.7.12