Delhi High Court
Vinod Kumar vs K.S. Mehra & Ors. on 22 May, 2009
Author: V.K.Shali
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ Cont.Cas(C) No. 536/2008
Date of Decision : 22.05.2009
Vinod Kumar ...... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Anand Nandan, Advocate
Versus
K.S. Mehra & Ors. ...... Respondents
Through: Nemo
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.SHALI, J
1. Whether reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment? YES
2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO
JUDGMENT
V.K.SHALI, J (Oral)
1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner under Section
12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of
Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that he is one of the
petitioners in a writ petition bearing No. 8288/2007 in which the
following order was passed:-
"Ms. Amita Gupta, learned counsel appearing
on behalf of the respondents says that the
petitioners are the seasonal workers. They shall
be paid their salary for the period they have
worked with the respondents, if not already paid,
within two weeks from today."
2. Thereafter, notice was issued to the MCD which was accepted by
Ms. Amita Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents and the matter
was directed to be listed on 5th November, 2008.
3. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that
though the petitioner has worked as a Domestic Breeder Checker with
the respondents/MCD but he has not been paid salary despite the order
dated 8th August, 2008 w.e.f. 1st December, 2007 till the time of filing of
the petition.
4. The petition has been filed on 9th September, 2008. However,
during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner
has contended that the respondents have paid salary for some period
which is not specifically mentioned in the petition, but despite this it
tantamounts to willful disobedience of the orders of the Court for which
an action be initiated for committing contempt of Court against the
respondents and they be punished in accordance with law.
5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied that
the petitioner had filed a writ petition, however, it is explained in the
preliminary objection that order of status quo with regard to the
services of the petitioner was passed on 22nd November, 2007 where the
respondents had taken the stand that the petitioner and his other
colleagues who had filed the writ petition, they were engaged seasonal
worker by the MCD during the period of breeding season of mosquito
causing Dengue fever. It was stated that there is no violation of the
order of status quo as the services of the petitioner or his colleagues are
not dispensed with in violation of the order dated 22nd November, 2007.
It is also stated that there is no deliberate or willful intention of non-
compliance of the order dated 8th August, 2008 in not paying the salary
of the petitioner. The stand of the respondents is that for the period of
engagement of the petitioner they have been paid their salary.
6. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and considered
the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
7. There is no doubt about the fact that a person would be prima
facie guilty of an offence of contempt of Court if the orders of the Court
are willfully contumaciously disobeyed by a party, but what is needed to
bring the matter within four corners of contempt of court is that there
must be a Court order. If one looks at the order dated 8th August, 2008
on which the entire petition is based, the portion which is attributed to
be an order of the Court, is in fact a statement made by the learned
counsel for the respondents/MCD. The said statement reads as under:-
"That Ms. Amita Gupta, learned counsel appearing on
behalf of the respondents says that the petitioners are
the seasonal workers. They shall be paid their salary
for the period they have worked with the respondents,
if not already paid, within two weeks from today."
8. This observation to pay the salary within a period of two weeks is
not a direction passed by the Court, but this is only a statement made
by the learned counsel for the respondents/MCD which in the event of
being not complied with cannot be construed to be contempt because
there is no order of the Court. Further this statement is also not in the
form of an undertaking.
9. Even if it is assumed that this is an order of the Court that the
salary was to paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from
the date of the said order dated 8th August, 2008 even then the said
order is not to be seen in isolation because the learned counsel for the
respondents/MCD has specifically stated that the petitioners are
seasonal workers that means they are not engaged continuously and in
the reply affidavit it has been specifically stated that their services are
being availed only during the breeding season of mosquito which causes
dengue fever. If that be the position obviously the question for which
period the petitioner has worked and if so to what salary he is entitled
becomes a disputed question of fact which cannot be got adjudicated in
the contempt petition. There has to be a definite and a specific
direction in the order of the Court of which there is allegation of willful
disobedience so as to enrope the respondents within the four corners of
contempt of Court. Conversely in case the order of the Court is
ambiguous or subject to two different interpretations then there can be
no contempt. In the instant case also even if we assume that order
dated 8th August, 2008 is an order of the Court what was to be paid to
the petitioner and for what period is not specifically mentioned in the
order. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is no prima
facie case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out against the
respondents for having willfully or contumaciously disobeyed order
dated 8th August, 2008 passed by this Court, and accordingly, the
contempt notice discharged and petition is dismissed.
May 22, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J.
KP
