BATRA HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRE OF CH AISHI RAM BATRA EMPLOYEES UNION Vs. MANAGEMENT OF BATRA HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL RESEARCH CENTRAL OF CH AISHI RAM BATRA PUBLIC CHARITABLE TRUST

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioners complain of violation of the order dated June 1, 2001 passed by the learned single Judge. Operative part of the order reads as under:

(2.) The respondents have filed affidavits. At the outset they tendered an unqualified apology for any unintentional action on their part which did not meet approval of the Court. A common judgment was passed by the Court in CWP Nos. 4499/2000, 1264/2000, 2066/2000 and 502/2001. An L.P.A No. 311/2001 was filed by Indraprastha Medical Corporation Ltd. petitioner in CWP No. 4499/2000, before the Division Bench of this Court assailing the order passed by the learned single Judge on June 1, 2001. It is stated thai; the respondents came to know of the filing of; the said LPA from the appellant in the said appeal. It is further stated that the Law Officer of the respondents was under the bona fide impression that the Division Bench had stayed the impugned judgment. This fact was not verified by the respondents. The respondents awaited the outcome of the said LPA and did not prefer an independent appeal. On receipt of the notice in the present contempt petition the respondents came to know for the first time that the judgment of the learned single Judge had not been stayed. It is stated that on further enquiries the respondents came to know that the Division Bench was pleased to extend the time for compliance of the order of the learned single Judge. Thereafter the respondents immediately complied with the directions given by the learned single Judge. Respondents concede that standing order was not filed for the reasons stated above but there was no intention to disobey the orders of this Court.

(3.) In light of the affidavit filed by the respondents, I am satisfied that the orders of this Court have been complied with. However the explanation offered does not inspire confidence. There is no explanation given as to how the respondents concluded that the operation of the judgment had been stayed. It shows the casual approach of the respondents, It was the duty of the respondents to ascertain as a fact whether the Letters Patent Bench had granted a stay of the operation of the order of the learned single Judge.