Manupatra

Fill in the following details to e-mail

Subject

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-transitional.dtd"> <html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"> <head> </head> <body> <div style="font-family:Verdana, Geneva, sans-serif; font-size:12px; text-align:justify"> <table width="800" border="0" style="border:1px solid #ccc;padding:5px;" align="center" cellpadding="6" cellspacing="0"> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top"> Supreme Court To constitute civil contempt, it must be established that disobedience is wilful, deliberate and with full knowledge of consequences MANU/SC/0449/2020 - (19 May 2020) </td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">The Workmen Through The Convener vs.Ravuthar Dawood Naseem</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" style="background-color:#FDEDCE">The grievance in present petitions is about non¬-compliance of direction given to the Respondent¬-Food Corporation of India to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workers who had initiated industrial disputes before the Industrial Tribunal under Section 10(1)(d) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 
The Petitioners submits that the direction given by the Tribunal and upheld by the Madras High Court including by this Court is unambiguous. It mandates the Respondent Corporation to regularise the concerned workers in the Departmental Labour System, as has been done in other cases adverted to by the Tribunal and the Madras High Court in the respective award/judgment. 
The Respondent Corporation would contend that, it has already regularised the eligible employees, who were party to the two References, under Direct Payment System (DPS) and nothing further was required to be done. It is urged that in both the References, the claim was restricted to regularisation of the concerned employees after abolition of the contract labour system. There was no prayer for absorbing the concerned employees under any specific system of regular labour prevailing in the Corporation. 
In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is “wilful”. The word “wilful” introduces a mental element and hence, requires looking into the mind of a person/contemnor by gauging his actions, which is an indication of one's state of mind. “Wilful” means knowingly intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It excludes casual, accidental, bona fide or unintentional acts or genuine inability. Wilful acts does not encompass involuntarily or negligent actions. The act has to be done with a “bad purpose or without justifiable excuse or stubbornly, obstinately or perversely”. Wilful act is to be distinguished from an act done carelessly, thoughtlessly, heedlessly or inadvertently. It does not include any act done negligently or involuntarily. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. Therefore, there has to be a calculated action with evil motive on his part. 
Even if there is a disobedience of an order, but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances under which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the contemnor cannot be punished. “Committal or sequestration will not be ordered unless contempt involves a degree of default or misconduct.” 
As it is indisputable that the Corporation has four systems of labour engagement including the Direct Payment System (DPS), the petitioner¬-Union(s) ought to have sought specific relief against the Corporation in that regard. The issue as to regularisation of the concerned workmen under particular labour system had not been put in issue before the Tribunal and upto this Court. A general direction came to be issued to regularise and departmentalise them. Resultantly, the Respondents were left with the only option to regularise the concerned workmen as per the extant applicable policy of the Organisation, under the Direct Payment System (DPS). 
In the present case, no specific direction has been given to the Corporation to regularise the concerned workmen only in the Departmental Labour System. Furthermore, the Departmental Labour System is now a dying cadre and the policy of the Corporation at the relevant time entailed regularisation of such workmen only under the Direct Payment System (DPS). Thus, no contempt action can be initiated on the basis of general direction to the Respondents to regularise and departmentalise the concerned workmen. No case for initiating contempt action against the Respondent Corporation and its officers has been made out. Accordingly, present petitions are dismissed.</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" ></td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top" >Tags : Contempt action, Initiation, Grounds</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr>  <td align="left" valign="top">Source : newsroom.manupatra.com</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Regards</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">Team Manupatra</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="left" valign="top">&nbsp;</td> </tr> </table> </div> </body> </html>