HARBANS SINGH Vs. R K MILLU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an application for condonation of delay in filing the Contempt Petition. The order which is alleged to have been disobeyed was admittedly passed on 7th September, 1989 by a Division Bench of this Court. It has been stated in the application for condonation itself that the petitioners waited for more than one year and yet the respondent has not taken any decision on the representations made by the petitioners to comply with the above order. No detail has been given either in the application or in the petition for contempt as to when the petitioners approached the respondent for complying with the order of this Court. In paragraph 5 of the petition for contempt, it has been averred that the order of this Court was handed over to the concerned authorities and that when the order of this Court reached the Mill authorities, the respondent told the petitioners alongwith other colleagues and shouted at them that he was not bothered about the High Court order. No date has been given as to when the respondent refused to obey the order and therefore there is no sufficient material on the record of the case to come to a conclusion as to when order was disobeyed. Wilful disobedience of the order of this Court has taken place more than a year back, Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act comes to the rescue of the respondent which prescribes the limitation of one year. No case law has been cited by the counsel for the petitioners to the effect that this Court can condone the delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The respondent filed an affidavit dated 28.10.1991, stating therein that full wages for the work done by the petitioners during the off season have been paid to the workers.

(3.) For the reasons recorded above, the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act is hereby dismissed.