Navneet Singh and Others vs Deepak Kumar, Executive Engineer, U.P.S.P.C. E.D.D.

Shishir Kumar, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the applicants and perused the record.

This application for contempt has been filed against the violation of the order dated 10.03.2003, passed in Writ Petition No. 11317 of 2003. It appears that applicants were working but they were not being paid minimum pay scale, therefore, they approached this Court by filing the aforesaid writ petition. This Court after considering the submission of the applicants passed the following orders :

After hearing learned Counsel for the parties, in view of the submission as has been made on behalf of the Petitioner, on the facts of present case and further in the ends of justice, submission of counsel for the Petitioner deserves acceptance as no fruitful purpose may be served by keeping the writ petition pending and thus, it is hereby directed that in the event, the Petitioner makes a representation before the competent authority alongwith certified copy of this order, he will decide the same by a reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law, preferably within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order alongwith representation is received by the competent authority provided the claim of Petitioner as being made has not been already decided / finalized by the competent authority or any competent court.

With this direction without going into the merits of the matter claim of the Petitioner, either way, this writ petition is disposed of finally.

According to applicants, immediately after the order was passed by this Court, they filed a representation along with certified copy of the order before the authority concerned to pass an appropriate order strictly in compliance with the order of this Court. According to applicants, in 2005 the applicants were directed to furnish certain documents that were submitted by the applicants and the last representation, filed by the applicants, was dated 18.10.2008 for compliance of the order of this Court, but in spite of repeated requests and representations, the order of this Court was not complied with. Then, this application for contempt is filed by the applicants.

Sri N.L. Pandey, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that the demand of the applicants is regarding payment of minimum wages, as such it is a recurring cause of action, therefore, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act will not be applicable in the present case. Reliance has been placed upon two judgments one of the apex court and another of this Court. The apex court judgment relied by the learned Counsel for the applicants is Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar Vs. Kalu Ram and Others, of which is being quoted below :

Another point was taken about limitation of this application u/s 20 of the Act. Section 20 states that no court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed. In this case, the present application was filed on or about November 3, 1988 as appears from the affidavit in support of the application. The contempt consisted, inter alia, of the act of not giving the possession by force of the order of the learned Senior Sub-Judge, Narnaul dated November 3, 1988 (sic February 12, 1988). Therefore, the application was well within the period of one year. Failure to give possession, if it amounts to a contempt in a situation of this nature is a continuing wrong. There was no scope for application of Section 20 of the Act.

Reliance has also been placed upon para 13 of the judgment of this Court reported in (2010) 3 UPLBEC 2097; Hari Shankar v. State of U.P. and Ors. which is being quoted below :

The next argument advanced is with regard to the bar contained in Section 20 of the Act. Section 20 of the Act is quoted herein under :

Limitation for actions for contempt.-No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed.

According to the reading of the aforesaid section the Court may not entertain an application alleging contempt if it is filed beyond a period of one year from the date on which the cause of action is alleged. In the present case the directions of the learned Single Judge is dated 25.08.1995 and the judgment of the Division Bench is dated 10.12.1997. Before the Apex Court there was an interim order and finally the civil appeal was disposed of vide judgment dated 21.2.2002. Further the claim of the applicants for regularization had admittedly been rejected in June, 2003. However, the admissibility of minimum of pay scale without allowances and other benefits was a monthly benefit accruing every month. In the present case one of the applications alleging contempt was filed in the year 2003 by Santosh Singh, the other three contempt applications were filed in the year 2004 by Sri Hari Shankar, Ram Swaroop Tewari and Ors. and Ram Singh and Anr., whereas the contempt application by Narayan was filed in the year 2006. Thus, with regard to the four contempt applications filed in the years 2003 and 2004, there can be no question of limitation as they were filed prior to June, 2004, which would be within one year from the date of rejection of their claim for regularization. However, the case of Narayan also cannot be thrown out on the ground of limitation as claim for grant of minimum of pay scale was a recurring cause of action.

In such circumstances, learned Counsel for the applicants submits that relief of minimum pay scale or relief of minimum wages is recurring cause of action as considered and decided by this Court, therefore, Section 20 of the Act will not come into and one year period cannot be taken into account for the purpose of limitation to entertain the contempt application by this Court.

I have considered the submissions of the applicants and perused the record.

There is no dispute to this effect that order was passed on 10.03.2003 directing the authority to take appropriate decision regarding grievance of the applicants within a period of three months from the date a certified copy along with representation is received by the competent authority. Admittedly, the claim of the applicants has not yet been considered. It is not known whether the applicants are working or not, but they have taken a plea that they were submitting representation after representation for taking a decision in pursuance of the order of this Court. It has also been stated that on 18.10.2008, the last representation was submitted.

u/s 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, it is provided that "No Court shall initiate any proceedings for contempt, either on its own motion or otherwise, after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed", meaning thereby the intention of the Legislature is that in case the order of this Court has not been complied with within the time fixed in the order, the period which is mentioned in the order is the relevant date for calculation of the period of limitation of one year. For example if a period of three months has been provided in a particular order, then period will be calculated from the date of filing the representation and period of 12 month and three months will be calculated. In case the order has not been complied with, the applicants have to approach the Court within a period of one year from the date of alleged disobedience of the order. If a person can succumb to the illegal act of the opposite parties, as alleged by the applicants, by not deciding or obeying the order of this Court, then the question to be considered is whether after a period of 7 years, if a person is approaching this Court for non-compliance of the order dated 10.03.2003 can be granted any relief by placing reliance upon Firm Ganpat Ram Rajkumar''s case (supra).

That was a matter under the Rent Control Act. The prescribed authority as well as the appellate authority decided the issue. Then, the matter ultimately was decided by the apex court upon an undertaking given by the tenant before the apex court regarding vacation of the premises. After the order of the apex court no undertaking was given by the tenant and subsequently sons and grandsons of the partners of the firm filed a suit for temporary injunction and obtained the same. Subsequently it was reveled to the Court that order of eviction was already been confirmed by the apex court, in that circumstance, the apex court has held that :

order of eviction passed by the High Court and confirmed by this Court by dismissing the SLP on the terms mentioned on 24th August 1987 is to be enforced or implemented. In our opinion, the said order must be implemented and cannot be allowed to be defeated by the dubious methods adopted by the partners of the said firm of Ganpat Ram Rajkumar. The whole conduct betrays a calculated attempt to defeat the order of this Court and to mislead this Court. If that is the position, in our opinion, parties cannot be allowed to do so and get away by misleading this Court. It may or may not be appropriate to pass any order punishing the wrongdoers. But there is no doubt that the order of this Court dated 24th August 1987 is being sought to be defeated and frustrated. Sons and grandsons of the partners or erstwhile partners of the firm cannot be allowed to frustrate the order of this Court.

In such circumstances, the apex court has held that it can be treated to be a recurring cause of action. Therefore, the facts of this case will not be applicable in the case of the applicants, in view of the fact that in case order of this Court was not complied with and a time limit was fixed by this Court, then applicants should have waited for a reasonable period of time and should have approached this Court within a period of limitation provided u/s 20 of the Act.

As regards, Hari Shankar''s case (supra) that was also a case in which the order passed by the division bench of this Court was of 1997. Then, the matter went to the apex court and the apex court has decided it with certain modifications by order dated 21.02.2002 and various applicants who were Petitioners in those writ petitions and before the apex court have filed the contempt applications well within time. Only one applicant has filed the application regarding the compliance of the order passed by the apex court beyond limitation. In that circumstance, this Court said that it can be treated to be within time on the facts mentioned and in view of the circumstances of that particular case.

Sri K.R. Singh, learned Standing Counsel has informed to this Court that against the judgment of Hari Shankar''s case a SLP has been filed before the apex court and the judgment has been stayed by the apex court. In such circumstances, in my opinion, this judgment passed by the Hon''ble Single Judge at the present moment and in the facts and circumstances of the present case cannot be taken into consideration, as relied upon by the learned Counsel for the applicants.

Now, the apex court in various cases have considered the question of limitation regarding filing representations after representation and the apex court has held that in case a person approached the court after a considerable period of time explaining his conduct that he was approaching the authorities by making various representations and when it was not decided he has approached this Court, in that circumstances, making representation after representation will not cover up the laches and limitation as held in Karnataka Power Corporation Limited through its Chairman and Managing Director and Another Vs. K. Thangappan and Another, Further, it has to be seen if the contention of the applicants is accepted, then purpose of Section 20 of the Act for non-compliance of any order passed by this Court or any other Court will be frustrated and there will be no fruitful purpose of Limitation Act or the laches in case it is accepted.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find no justification to interfere in this case. This contempt application can easily be dismissed on the ground of limitation.

No order as to costs.