GOPAL LAL Vs. O P MEENA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The services of the petitioner, who was Conductor in Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation, were terminated vide order dated 15-5-1986, by the non-petitioners. This order was challenged by the petitioner by filing a suit in the Court of A.C.J.M. No. 3, Jaipur City, Jaipur, which was decreed by the said Court vide its judgment and decree dated 26-9-1989 and the order of termination of the services of the petitioner was quashed. On account of setting-aside of the termination order, the petitioner was reinstated by the non-petitioners. The non-petitioners filed an appeal against the judgment and decree of the trial court dated 26-9-1989, which was allowed by Additional District Judge No. 5, Jaipur City, Jaipur, vide his judgment and decree dated 26-7-1993. Against this judgment and decree, the petitioner filed Civil Second Appeal No. 196/1993. He also filed Stay Application No. 102/1993. On the stay application, this Court on 10-9-1993, passed the following order :-

(2.) The petitioner submitted a copy of the said order to the Non-Petitioner No. 2, but he did not pay any heed and the services of the petitioner were again terminated by the Non-Petitioner No. 2, vide his order dated 16-9-1993. The petitioner on 29-9-1993, served a Notice on the Non-Petitioners and prayed that termination order dated 16-9-1993, be withdrawn within three days from the date of receipt of notice, failing which the petitioner would be compelled to file a contempt application. When nothing was done by the non-petitioners, the petitioner filed the present contempt application and prayed that as the Non-Petitioners willfully disobeyed the order of this Court dated 10-9-93, they be punished under the provisions of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Notice of this application was issued to the Non-Petitioners, who filed reply of the same. The Non-Petitioners did not deny this fact that they reinstated the petitioner when the suit of the petitioner was decreed by the trial court vide its judgment and decree dated 26-9-1989. In Para No. 5 of the reply, the non-petitioners alleged that the contempt application had been filed in haste by the petitioner as the order of this Court dated 10-9-1993, did not become final. The petitioner should have waited till the confirmation of order. It has been further mentioned that the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, could not be invoked in such circumstances.

(3.) In Para No. 7 of the reply the non-petitioners mentioned that the petitioner did not give any date when the petitioner submitted a copy of the order of High Court. In Para No. 9 of their reply, the non-petitioners mentioned that the contents mentioned in Para No. 9 of the Contempt Application were wrong and illegal. In Para No. 2 of the additional pleas, the non-petitioners mentioned that the contempt of Court proceedings were only available to the petitioner when there was no other equal efficacious remedy. It has been further mentioned that the proceedings of Contempt of Court could be initiated only after the confirmation of the order dated 10-9-1993. It was prayed that the contempt-application be dismissed with cots.