PANKAJ SINGH Vs. LABOUR COMMISSIONER UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an application under Section 12 of the contempt of court Act, 1971. The prayer is that the Opposite Party No. 1 and 2 are liable to be punished for having shown disobedience to the order of this court dated 2-1-1989 passed in Writ Petition No. 13053 of 1987, Sri Pankaj Singh v. Labour Commissioner, U. P. and others. The order dated 2-1-1989 was to the following effect :-

(2.) IN reply to the show cause notice, the opposite parties have filed their respective defence by tiling separate counter affidavits. IN the counter affidavit tiled by Attar Singh, the defence taken Is that the order dated 2-1-1989 passed in the writ petition was never served on him nor he had any knowledge of the same before 11th January, 1989. The appointments of two persons of which reference is made in the contempt application, were made before the deponent came to know of the order passed by this court. Under these circumstances, it is claimed that there was no willful disobedience on his part so as to warrant any action for contempt.

(3.) IN order to constitute a contempt within the meaning of Section 2 of the Contempt of courts Act, 1971, the disobedience must be wilful. Clause (b) of Section 2 says "civil contempt" means wilful disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or a wilful breach of undertaking given to a court. Where the contempt powers are sought to be INvoked it must be established that the contemner is liable for breach of injunction or similar orders. The Courts will be reluctant to to exercise their powers, and will do so only in the clearest cases, namely, where an offender having had proper notice of the order, has been shown beyond all reasonable doubt to have committed the contempt. IN civil contempt as is evident from Section 2 (b), the emphasis is laid on the disobedience being wilful. IN other words, every infraction of the courts order does not amount to contempt of court. It is only a wiiful and deliberate violation of the Court's order and contumacious conduct on the part of the contemner which is to be condemned in the contempt proceedings.