Kerala High Court

C.Shaji vs Promod.B on 13 August, 2021

                IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
                                      PRESENT
                THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE C.T.RAVIKUMAR
                                         &
             THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
     FRIDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF AUGUST 2021 / 22ND SRAVANA, 1943
                        CON.CASE(C) NO. 1821 OF 2020
   AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN WA 1144/2015 OF HIGH COURT OF KERALA
PETITIONERS/APPELLANTS IN WA:

    1        C.SHAJI,AGED 53 YEARS
             S/O.LATE C.C. BABY, PRESENTLY WORKING AS WATCHER,
             CHANDANAPPALLY ESTATE, NEDUMONKAVU P.O, KOODAL,
             PATHANAMTHITTA, 689 699, AND HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE
             AT CHERIYATHU HOUSE, CHANDANAPPALLY P.O, VIA KAIPPATTU,
             PATHANAMTHITT-689 648 (EARLIER WORKING AS FIELD
             ASSISTANT ON WORKING ARRANGEMENT, PLANTATION
             CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, KODUMON ESTATE,
             PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT).
    2        K.R. ANIL,AGED 50 YEARS
             S/O.LATE K. RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, PRESENTLY WORKING AS
             FIELD EXECUTIVE IN CHARGE, DIVISION F, KODUMON ESTATE,
             NEDUMANKAVU P.O, KOODAL, PATHANAMTHITTA, 689 699, AND
             HAVING PERMANENT RESIDENCE AT SREERAGAM , PARAKODE P.O,
             EZHAMKULAM, ADOOR, PATHANAMTHITTA-691 554 (EARLIER
             WORKING AS FIELD ASSISTANT ON WORKING ARRANGEMENT,
             PLANTATION CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, KODUMON
             ESTATE, PATHANAMTHITTA DISTRICT.
             BY ADVS.
                    P.G.JAYASHANKAR
                    KUM.P.K.RESHMA (KALARICKAL)
                    SMT.STEFIN THOMAS


RESPONDENT/CONTEMNOR/1ST RESPONDENT IN WA:

             PROMOD.B,AGE AND NAME OF FATHER NOT KNOWN TO THE
             PETITIONER, PRESENTLY MANAGING DIRECTOR, PLANTATION
             CORPORATION OF KERALA LIMITED, MUTTAMBALAM P.O,
             KOTTAYAM-686 004
             BY ADV SRI.N.RAJESH


     THIS    CONTEMPT    OF   COURT    CASE     (CIVIL)   HAVING   COME   UP   FOR
ADMISSION ON 06.07.2021, THE COURT ON 13.08.2021 DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
 CO(C)No.1821/2020
in W.A.1144/2015                      2



                            JUDGMENT

Murali Purushothaman, J.

This Contempt of Court case is filed alleging willful and

deliberate disobedience with the directions in the judgment dated

21.8.2018 in W.A.No.1144 of 2015 of a Division Bench of this Court.

What is alleged is a civil contempt as defined in Section 2(b) of the

Contempt of Courts Act,1971.

2. The petitioners who were working as Field Assistants on

working arrangement at Chandanappilly Estate, Nedumankavu and A1

Division of Kodumon Estate respectively applied for appointment to

the post of Field Assistant in the Plantation Corporation of Kerala Ltd.

under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme. They filed W.P.(C)No.25593 of

2011 challenging the action of the Plantation Corporation, the 1 st

respondent therein, in not granting them the post of Field Assistants

under the Dying-in-Harness Scheme. The prayers were to quash

Ext.P28 order passed by the Government, the 2 nd respondent therein,

based on representations submitted by them and also issuance of writ

of mandamus commanding the respondents to give them appointments CO(C)No.1821/2020

to the post of Field Assistant with retrospective effect at least from

2.2.1989 and for such other reliefs. The writ petition was dismissed

with an observation which reads thus:-

"In the result, I do not think that the petitioners are entitled for any claim in the present writ petition. However, it is made clear that if the petitioners have a case that their juniors were promoted on the basis of any decision, that might be taken by the Industrial Tribunal in I.D.No.52/1992, petitioners can also seek appropriate reliefs based on the said award."

3. Obviously, the Single Bench issued such a direction taking

note of the fact that after their application for appointment in the post

of Field Assistant, they were appointed as workers/watchers with

effect from 07.02.1992 and 05.09.1991 respectively.

4. Aggrieved by the above judgment, the petitioners filed

W.A.No.1144 of 2015. The appeal was allowed and the impugned

judgment of the learned Single Judge was set aside and impugned

Ext.P28 order was quashed. The operative portion of the judgment

reads thus:-

"In fact, the matter has attained finality as per the award in I.D.No.52 of 1992. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the appellants herein are also entitled to be considered in parity with the workmen in I.D.No.52 of 1992.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed setting aside the impugned judgment and quashing Ext.P28 order. The CO(C)No.1821/2020

respondent Management is directed to consider the case of the appellants herein and pass appropriate orders in the light of the award in I.D.No.52 of 1992."

5. It is alleging willful and deliberate disobedience with the

aforesaid direction that the contempt petition has been filed. The case

of the petitioners is that, the action of the alleged contemnor in issuing

Annexures-A2 and A3, posting the petitioners provisionally as Field

Assistants under supernumerary posts created in the category of Field

Assistant in the scale of pay of Rs.9,940-16580 is nothing but willful

disobedience with the directions contained in Annexure-A1 judgment.

6. Heard Sri.P.G.Jayashankar, the learned counsel for the

petitioners and Sri.Rajesh N., the learned Standing Counsel for the

respondent.

7. While dealing with an application for contempt, the Court is

really concerned only with the question whether the earlier decision

which has attained finality, had been complied with or not.

8. The fact is that Annexures-A2 and A3 are passed in purported

compliance with Annexure-A1 judgment. The foundation for the

allegation of contempt of court is that the petitioners were not treated CO(C)No.1821/2020

at par with the petitioners in I.D.No.52/1992 despite the direction in

the judgment. While considering the same, the steps taken by the

petitioners pursuant to Annexure-A1 judgment is also to be taken into

account. They moved Annexure-R1(a) representation dated

22.11.2018 expressing their willingness to settle the issue through

discussion. In this context, it is relevant to note that a careful perusal

of the petition filed by them for initiation of contempt of court action

against the alleged contemnor would reveal that the factum of filing of

Annexure-R1(a) is conspicuously absent there. What they have stated

in paragraph 3 is that in ostensible compliance with Annexure-A1

judgment, the contemnor constituted a sub-committee to amicably

settle the issue and constituted supernumerary category posts in order

to appoint the petitioners and on the basis of recommendation of the

sub-committee, they were issued with orders of provisional posting as

Field Assistants under supernumerary category in the scale of pay of

Rs.9940-16580 as per Annexures-A2 and A3. However, Annexure-

R1(a) dated 22.11.2018 would reveal that they themselves expressed

their willingness to amicably settle the matter. It is also relevant in

this context to refer to the recitals in paragraph 8 of the counter CO(C)No.1821/2020

affidavit filed by the alleged contemnor in the above proceedings. It

reads thus:-

"I may respectfully submit that in Annexure-A1 judgment, it was directed to consider the case of the appellants in the light of the award in ID.No.52/1992. In ID.No.52/1992, the only finding of the Tribunal is that all the concerned workmen are to be given appointment as Field Assistants from a particular date. The directions in the award was fully complied with and all the eight workmen were given appointment as Field Assistants. The petitioners herein are not parties to the dispute before the Industrial Tribunal."

9. Annexures-A2 and A3 would reveal that the petitioners were

offered appointments pursuant to the settlement as Field Assistants in

the supernumerary posts created only for the purpose of

accommodating petitioners and similarly situated persons, subject to

the approval of Government of Kerala. In such circumstances, it

cannot be said that there was non-compliance with the direction in

Annexure-A1 judgment to consider the case of the petitioners and pass

appropriate orders. True that, such a direction was issued to consider

the same in the light of the award in I.D.No.52/1992. However, then,

the petitioners themselves who received judgment in W.A.No.1144 of

2015, expressed their willingness to have discussion to settle the CO(C)No.1821/2020

matter. In such circumstances, we are of the view that no contempt of