Electronics System Punjab and njab Employees Union (Regd.) and another v. vs The State of Punjab and othe others
Case Details
COCP-1568 1568-2025 (O&M) -1- IN THE HI E HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 102 COCP-1568-2025 COCP Date of Decision: 26.11.2025 Date o Electronic S onic System Punjab Employees Union Union (Regd) and another Tejveer Sing r Singh and others Versus .… Petitioners .... Respondents CORAM: H M: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDH NIDHI GUPTA Present: - ate for Mr. Abhinav Jain, Advocate for e for the petitioners. Mr. AS Sekhon, Advocate for th Mr. Saurav Verma, Addl. A.G. . A.G., Punjab. Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Advoc for respondents No. 3 and 4. Advocate NIDHI GUP I GUPTA, J. 1. The present contempt petitio ging petition has been filed alleging violation of on of order dated 03.05.2006 (Annexu nnexure P-1) passed in CWP-2000- 1999, titled titled as ‘Electronics System Punjab and njab Employees Union (Regd.) and another vs. vs. The State of Punjab and othe others’, whereby Hon’ble the 1st Division Ben on Bench had directed as follows: -
Decision
“We accordingly dispose on pose of this case with a direction that the Department of Industr te ustries, Punjab, the Punjab State Industrial Development Co er Corporation or any other department concerned shall ta he ll take appropriate action in the matter on the basis of docum he cuments on record and take the matter to its logical end.” 2. It is, inter alia, submitted b the itted by learned counsel for the petitioners th s that in blatant violation of the sa ents the said direction, the respondents RISHU KATARIA 2025.11.28 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-1568 1568-2025 (O&M) -2- have willful illfully not conducted any enquiry i r to uiry in the matter only in order to save the Of he Officers on higher ranks. It is s the It is submitted that previously the respondents dents and their predecessors had bee that ad been telling the petitioners that they are com complying with the order dated ; dated 03.05.2006 (Annexure P-1); however, as r, as per information received under ave under the RTI, the petitioners have found that no that no action had been taken. Accord filed ccordingly, the petitioners had filed the present c esent contempt petition as the responde ded spondents are liable to be proceeded under the p the provisions of Contempt of C after of Courts Act, 1971 (hereinafter referred to as d to as ‘the Act of 1971’). 3. Reply dated 25.11.2025, file , filed by way of affidavit of t of Sh. Kamal amal Kishor Yadav, Administrativ t of strative Secretary, Department of Industries an ries and Commerce, Punjab, on behalf ken behalf of respondent No. 1 is taken on record. 4. A copy thereof, has been hande l for handed over to learned counsel for the petitione titioners. 5. Per Contra learned counsel f nsel for respondent Nos. 1 and 2 vehemently ently opposes the submissions made nsel made on behalf of learned counsel for the peti e petitioners and submits that firs sent at first and foremost the present contempt pe pt petition is barred by limitation. M/s tion. Moreover, the Company-M/s Electronics S onics System Punjab Ltd., had already dent lready been wound up, as is evident from order d rder dated 20.01.2025 (Annexure R- ated -3, annexed with the reply dated 25.11.2025 f 2025 filed on behalf of respondent No ssor ent No. 1) passed by the Predecessor Bench of thi of this Court in Company Petition M/s ition No. 94 of 2004, titled as M/s Electronic onic System Punjab Ltd. It is poin uent s pointed out that by a subsequent order dated dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure R-4), pa 4), passed in CA-169-2022 in CP- RISHU KATARIA 2025.11.28 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-1568 1568-2025 (O&M) -3- 94-2004, the 04, the company M/s Electronic Syste d to System Punjab Ltd. was ordered to be dissolved solved. 6. Learned counsel further ref er refers to a ated judgment dated 28.02.2024 2024 of the Hon’ble 1stDivision Benc n Bench of this Court in LPA-145- 2024 titled titled as ‘Excise & Taxation Inspect e of Inspectors Association vs. State of Punjab and and others’ wherein it is held that ve that the ‘Association cannot have any right to t to file the writ petition as no ind ng o individual grievances are being addressed or or agitated’. It is contended that i ent that in view of this pronouncement of law, the , the writ petition itself filed by the p not the petitioner-Association was not maintainable inable. Accordingly prays for dismi t dismissal of the present contempt petition. 7. 8. Heard. I find merit in the submission the issions advanced on behalf of the respondents dents No. 1 and 2. As per Section it is ction 20 of the Act of 1971, it is stipulated th ted that “No Court shall initiate a pt, te any proceedings of contempt, either on its n its own motion or otherwise, after ne after the expiry of a period of one year from t om the date on which the contem en ntempt is alleged to have been committed.” ed.” Thus, a contempt petition c this tion cannot be entertained at this belated stag d stage almost 20 years after passin 006 passing of order dated 03.05.2006 (Annexure P ure P-1). 9. In a recent judgment, the Ho S. the Hon'ble Supreme Court in S. Tirupathi R athi Raovs. M. Lingamaiah and Ot Doc nd Others (SC): Law Finder Doc Id # 261855 618555 has held that: “Delay in filing a contempt p ely pt petition should be adequately justified, and the court must ad od st adhere to the limitation period stipulated under Section 20 of t A. of the Contempt of Courts Act. A. RISHU KATARIA 2025.11.28 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-1568 1568-2025 (O&M) -4- Contempt of Courts Act, 197 for 1971 Section 20 Limitation for actions for contempt The High a igh Court's judgment allowing a review petition without adherin as ering to the limitation period was erroneous The contempt petitio as tition was barred by limitation as it was filed more than five ye no e years after the order, and no sufficient cause for delay wa of y was shown - The concept of “continuing wrong” must b nd st be adequately pleaded and established to overcome the lim imitation bar.” In the presen present case, no continuing wrong has e of ng has been brought to the notice of this Court. ourt. As such, the present contemp time ntempt petition is hopelessly time barred. 10. Further, it is not denied by learn ners y learned counsel for the petitioners that the Co Company-M/s Electronics System the System Punjab Ltd. of which the Employees’ yees’ Union/petitioners have filed th ition filed the present contempt petition already stoo y stood dissolved in pursuance of 022 ce of the order dated 30.09.2022 (Annexure R xure R-4), passed in CA-169-2022 in C 22 in CP-94-2004. 11. Lastly, it is also not dispute the sputed by learned counsel for the petitioners th ners that the present contempt petition 999, etition as well as CWP-2000-1999, titled as ‘ as ‘Electronics System Punjab Em and b Employees Union (Regd.) and another vs. vs. The State of Punjab and othe ated others’ in which direction dated 03.05.2006 w 2006 was issued had been filed by th M/s d by the Employees’ Union of M/s Electronics onics System Punjab Ltd. Therefore, ated refore, in terms of judgment dated 28.02.2024 o 2024 of the Hon’ble 1stDivision Benc n Bench of this Court in LPA-145- 2024 titled titled as ‘Excise & Taxation Inspect e of Inspectors Association vs. State of Punjab and and others’, the present proceeding . In eeding is also not maintainable. In para No. 6 th o. 6 thereof, it has been held as under: under:- RISHU KATARIA 2025.11.28 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. COCP-1568 1568-2025 (O&M) -5- “6. A specific objection had in had been taken by the State in paragraph two on merits of the ect f the written statement to the effect that 2014 Rules had come into at into force, apart from the fact that the Association cannot have an on e any right to file the writ petition as no individual grievances are d. s are being addressed or agitated. In such circumstances, we are o at are of the considered opinion that the writ petition also was not of not maintainable at the hands of the Association. The objectio en ction raised has also not been controverted in the replication of tion. The locus standi as such of the Association is thus an aspe sly aspect which has to be seriously pondered upon as to on what he hat account it was furthering the cause of a set of persons who w n, ho were handling the Association, and the persons aggrieved as s rd as such were not coming forward to show as to how their interest rests have been affected…..” 12. Thus, keeping in view the ab egal the above noted factual and legal aspect, prese , present Contempt Petition is hereby ereby dismissed. 13. 14. Rule stands discharged. Pending application(s), if any, s any, shall also stand disposed of. 2025 26.11.2025 rishu ( NIDHI GUPTA ) JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No RISHU KATARIA 2025.11.28 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.