Damodar Bhagat And Ors. vs Mr. V.K. Malhotra, Managing ...
2004 Latest Caselaw 424 Del

JUDGMENT

Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. Contempt petition arises out of the alleged non-compliance of the order dated 31.10.2003 passed in WP(C) No. 3474/2003.

2. Following order was passed on 31.10.2003.

''Notice to respondent to show cause as to why rule nisi be not issued. Ms. Kapur accepts notice on behalf of the respondent/FCI. She prays for some time to file counter affidavit. Let counter affidavit be filed within six weeks. Rejoinder within four weeks thereafter. It is contended by counsel for the petitioner that the demand has been referred to Head Quarter as per Annexure P-8 of the paper-book by the respondent. The petitioners have been working since 1992 and thereafter till 1997 they were working directly under the respondent and respondent has to engage some labour at FSD, Gill Road, Ludhiana. Weightage to the petitioners be given. Renotify on 22.3.2004.dusty.''

3. Petitioners alleged that workers, being 13 in number, were deployed at the Gill Road, Ludhiana Depot from outside and, therefore, order dated 31.10.2003 has been violated.

4. In response to the contempt petition, respondent states that from Annexure-F filed by the petitioners along with the contempt petition it is obvious that decision was taken to redeploy labour from Jamalpur to the depot at Kila Raipur and Gill Road Ludhiana on 12.12.2003. The defense, therefore, is that orders for re-deployment were already passed on 22.10.2003, much before order 31.10.2003 was passed. It is further stated in the defense that it is not a case of employment of fresh labour but is a care of redeployment of existing labour under direct payment system from one depot to another.

5. I need not go into the merits of the factual controversy. A deliberate, intention and conscious act to violate an order the court would attract contempt. means read is an essential ingredient in every contempt.

6. Looking at the response of the respondent to the contempt petition it cannot be said that the respondent has acted consciously, deliberately or intentionally to violate the order dated 31.10.2003.

7. The notice issued to the respondent is discharged. The contempt petition is dismissed.

No costs.