Mrs. Ethel David vs The Methodist Church In India And ...
2008 Latest Caselaw 395 Del

JUDGMENT

Anil Kumar, J.

1. The petitioner has sought an order directing the respondent to pay the last drawn wages at Rs. 3200/- per month with effect from 1st January, 2006 and continue to pay as per order dated 14th March, 2005. The petitioner has also prayed for an order to punish the respondents for disobeying the orders of the Court.

2. The last drawn wages in terms of order dated 14th March, 2005 has since been paid by the respondents to the petitioner till 30th November, 2006.

3. The respondents have also offered employment to the petitioner, which the petitioner has agreed to accept and the petitioner has been directed to appear before the concerned authorities of the respondent on 1st March, 2008.

4. In November, 2007 also the respondent was offered an employment which she joined on 17th November, 2006, however, she sought a leave which was granted and thereafter the allegation of the petitioner is that the petitioner did not come and join the duties. The plea of the respondent is that she was not offered a proper job as a Stenographer for which the award was passed in her favor and she was made to sit on a plastic chair.

5. The order was passed on 14th March, 2005 under Section 17B of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 as the petitioner was not gainfully employed.

6. After the payment of the arrears the petitioner offered an employment which was accepted by the petitioner and on acceptance of the employment, the petitioner could not insist that she should be reinstated to the job of Stenographer from which she was dismissed leading to an award directing the petitioner to reinstate the respondent against which the writ petition was filed and the reinstatement ordered under the award was stayed. Therefore the order under Section 17B was not for reinstatement of the respondent as the said order was stayed and after the order under Section 17B was passed, the employment was offered by the petitioner which may not be the same. In any case, the respondent should have approached the Court for necessary directions in this regard and could not stop attending the employment offered by the petitioner.

7. A proceeding under the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 is quasi-criminal, and as such, the standard of proof required is that of a criminal proceeding and the breach shall have to be established beyond all reasonable doubt. This is no more disputable that exercise of power within the meaning of the Act of 1971 is comparatively a rarity and should be used sparingly and in the larger interest of society and for proper administration of justice. It is also true and noticed that mere disobedience of an order may not be sufficient to amount to a 'Civil Contempt' within the meaning of Section 2(b) of the Act of 1971. The element of willingness and intention is an indispensable requirement to take action. It is also true that if two interpretations are possible and the action of alleged contemnor pertains to one of such interpretations which will raise doubts about the willful nature of conduct, if raised, contempt will not be made out. The wages according to the order dated 14th March, 2005 were not paid as the petitioner had offered employment to the respondent which was accepted by her and later on she stopped attending the employment offered on the ground that the work of the stenographer has not been taken from her and she had been made to sit on a plastic chair. The petitioner had stopped making the payment as an employment had been offered which was accepted by her. In the circumstances, non-payment of amounts in terms of order dated 14th March, 2005 will not be deliberate and willful so as to attract the jurisdiction of this Court under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

8. In the circumstances, there is no willful and deliberate violation of order dated 14th March, 2005 so as to initiate contempt of Court proceedings against the respondents nor the petitioner is entitled for a direction to pay Rs. 3200/- per month from 1st December, 2006 till February, 2008 at the rate of Rs. 3200/- per month in the present contempt petition.

9. The application is without any merit and is, therefore, dismissed.