Apoorva Kumar vs Satyawan
2024 Latest Caselaw 19242 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 19242 P&H
Judgement Date : 19 October, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Apoorva Kumar vs Satyawan on 19 October, 2024

Bench: G.S. Sandhawalia, Meenakshi I. Mehta

                             Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136742-DB



        IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                      AT CHANDIGARH




(108)                                              LPA-2539-2024 (O&M)
                                                   Decided on : 19.10.2024
Apporva Kumar                                                 ......Appellant(s)
                                          Versus
Satyawan                              ......Respondent(s)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S. SANDHAWALIA
         HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

Present:   Mr. Anil Goel, Advocate (through V.C) &
           Mr. Dinesh Maurya, Advocate for the appellant.
                       *****
G.S. Sandhawalia, J.(Oral)

1. Present letters patent appeal is directed against an order dated

30.09.2024 passed in COCP-2150-2023, whereby the present appellant has

been asked to remain present in the Court for the purpose of consideration on

charge, on account of non-grant of the benefit under Section 17-B of the

Industrial Disputes Act, 1947.

2. We are of the considered opinion that the present appeal is not

maintainable in view of the law laid down by the Coordinate Bench in

Subhash Chander Sethi Vs. Sh. B.R. Kakkar, Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation of Ludhiana, 1990(2) PLR 46, wherein while relying upon the

judgment of the Apex Court in D.N. Taneja Vs. Bhajan Lal, (1988) 3 SCC

26, it has been held that an appeal would only lie when the Court imposes a

punishment for contempt. Similar view has been taken by the Apex Court in

Midnapore Peoples Co-op. Bank Ltd. and others Vs. Chunilal Nanda and

others, (2006) 5 SCC 399, wherein the law regarding the appeals against the

order under the contempt proceedings had been summarized and it had been

held that an appeal under Section 19 of the Act would only be maintainable

against the decision of the High Court to punish for contempt. The relevant

part of the said judgment reads as under:-

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136742-DB

LPA-2539-2024 (O&M) -2-

"11. The position emerging from these decisions, in regard to appeals against orders in contempt proceedings may be summarized thus :

I. An appeal under section 19 is maintainable only against an order or decision of the High Court passed in exercise of its jurisdiction to punish for contempt, that is, an order imposing punishment for contempt.

II. Neither an order declining to initiate proceedings for contempt, nor an order initiating proceedings for contempt nor an order dropping the proceedings for contempt nor an order acquitting or exonerating the contemnor, is appealable under Section 19 of the CC Act. In special circumstances, they may be open to challenge under Article 136 of the Constitution.

III. In a proceeding for contempt, the High Court can decide whether any contempt of court has been committed, and if so, what should be the punishment and matters incidental thereto. In such a proceeding, it is not appropriate to adjudicate or decide any issue relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties.

IV. Any direction issued or decision made by the High Court on the merits of a dispute between the parties, will not be in the exercise of 'jurisdiction to punish for contempt' and therefore, not appealable under section 19 of CC Act. The only exception is where such direction or decision is incidental to or inextricably connected with the order punishing for contempt, in which event the appeal under section 19 of the Act, can also encompass the incidental or inextricably connected directions.

V. If the High Court, for whatsoever reason, decides an issue or makes any direction, relating to the merits of the dispute between the parties, in a contempt proceedings, the aggrieved person is not without remedy. Such an order is open to challenge in an intra-court appeal (if the order was of a learned Single Judge and

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:136742-DB

LPA-2539-2024 (O&M) -3-

there is a provision for an intra-court appeal), or by seeking special leave to appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India (in other cases).

The first point is answered accordingly.

3. The judgment relied upon by counsel for the appellant passed by

a three Judges Bench in Civil Appeal Nos.8129 7 8130 of 2024 'Ajay Kumar

Bhalla & others Vs. Prakash Kumar Dixit' decided on 29.07.2024

(Annexure A-23) only reiterates the position of law, which we have noticed

above. The three Judges Bench headed by learned Chief Justice of India has

rather recorded that an appeal would lie only against an order imposinga

punishment as such. The facts of the said case, thus, would go on to show that

the learned Single Judge had held the Inspector General of Police (Personnel)

and DIG (Personnel) guilty of contempt and then granted them an opportunity

and in the present case the charge is yet to be framed. Therefore, the said

judgment would not be of any assistance to the counsel for the appellant.

4. Faced with this situation, counsel for the appellant submits that he

be given liberty to deposit the outstanding amount. We are sanguine, if any

such request is made by the appellant before the Contempt Court, the same

shall be considered positively.