PETITIONER:
INDIAN AIRPORTS EMPLOYEES UNION
Vs.
RESPONDENT:
RANJAN CHATTERJEE & ANOTHER.
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02/02/1999
BENCH:
M. JAGANNADHA RAO., & D.P. WADHWA.
JUDGMENT
M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.
A Bench of this Court of which one of us
(Justice D.P.Wadhwa) was a member disposed of a
batch of Civil Appeals on 11.4.1997 giving various
directions. The said Appeals were filed against
the judgment of the Bombay High Court dated
27.3.1996 in W.P.Nos. 1494/89, 2362/90 and
504/1991. In the matters now before us relating to
contempt of Court, we are concered only with W.P.
No.2362 of 1990.
The workmen who were concered with the said
Civil Appeal arising out of W.P. No.2362 of 1990
and who filed the said writ petition were
represented by the International Airport Authority
Employees Union. As the writ petition was
dismissed, the said Union filed the Civil Appeal.
This Court allowed the Civil Appeals on 11.4.1997
following the judgment in AIR INDIA Statutory
Corporation Etc. vs. United Labour Union & Others
[1996 (9) SCALE 70] and held that "consequent upon
the abolition of the contract labour system with
effect from 9.12.1976, the appellants were
entitled, in the light of the above judgment in AIR
INDIA case, to be regularised w.e.f. the date of
judgment of the High Court (i.e. 27.3.1996) as
held in Masih Charan & Others vs. Union of India &
Others in Writ Petition(Civil) No.219 of 1993 dated
10.3.1997."
In the cases argued before us, arguments were
confined to 6 workmen, Elizabeth D’Souza, Nagubai
Kurade, Shoba Babu Gurav, Laxmi Babu Mirikar,
Dwarkabai Arke and Vishravathi Waghmare, who were
said to be working as sweepers in the Car Parking
area of the Bombay International Airport at the
time the notification abolishing contract labour
came into effect on 9.12.1976. They claim that
inasmuch as the benefit given to them by the
Supreme Court in its judgment above-mentioned, has
not been granted, the respondents have committed
Civil Contempt.
According to the learned senior counsel for
the petitioners, Ms. Indira Jaising, the
respondents were obliged to regularise the services
of these six sweepers by way of absorbing them as
employees of the Corporation and as the same was
not done, there is clear contempt of the orders of
this Court dated 11.4.1997 in the Civil Appeal. It
was pointed out that the names of these six
employees were shown in the annexure to the writ
petition No.2362 of 1990 filed in the High Court.
There was no reason as to why these six sweepers
were not regularised.
On the other hand, according to the learned
senior counsel for the respondents Sri.
R.Sundaravardan, the matter turns upon an
interpretation of the notification of the Central
Government dated 9.12.1976, as to whether these six
sweepers can be said to be among those ‘sweeping,
cleaning, dusting and watching the buildings owned
or occupied by establishment" and also on the
interpretation of the judgment in the Civil Appeals
dated 11.4.1997. It is argued that these six
employees, if they were engaged by a licensee of
the respondent, employed in connection with
"Management of Car Parks" then these sweepers would
not come with the purview of the notification nor
within the scope of the judgment of this Court.
Any bonafide action on the part of the respondents
based on an interpretation of the notification and
judgment of this Court, it is argued, will not
amount to breach of the orders of this Court. It
is also stated that if, indeed, this Court declares
in appropriate proceedings that these six sweepers
are also to be absorbed and regularised, the
respondents have no objection to do so.
The point for consideration is: whether the
respondents can be said to have committed contempt
of the orders of this Court in Civil Appeal Nos.
2987-89 of 1997 dated 11.4.1997?
It is well settled that disobedience of orders
of Court, in order to amount to ‘Civil Contempt’
under section 2(b) of the Contempt of Courts’ Act,
1971 must be ‘wilful’ and proof of mere
disobedience is not sufficient. [S.S.Roy vs.
State of Orissa & Others AIR 1960 SC 190]. Where
there is no deliberate flouting of the orders of
the Court but a mere misinterpretation of the
executive instructions, it would not be a case of
Civil Contempt [Ashok Kumar Singh & Others vs.
State of Bihar & Others AIR 1992 SC 407].
In this contempt case, we do not propose to
decide whether these six sweepers do fall within
the scope of the notification dated 9.12.1976 or
the judgment of this Court dated 11.4.1997. That
is a question to be decided in appropriate
proceedings.
It is true that these six sweepers’ names are
shown in the annexure to the W.P. No.2362 of 1990
in the High Court. But, the question is whether
there is wilful disobedience to the orders of this
Court. In the counter affidavit of the
respondents, it is stated that there is no specific
direction in the judgment of this Court for
absorption of these sweepers, if any, working in
the Car Park area, and that the directions given in
the judgment were in relation to the sweeper
working at the ‘International Airport, National
Airport Cargo Complex and Import Warehouse’. It is
stated that the cleaners employed by the licensee
in charge of Maintenance of the Car Park area do
not, on a proper interpretation of the order, come
within the sweep of these directions. It is
contended that even assuming that they were
included in the category of sweepers working at the
‘International Airport’, inasmuch as they were not
employed for the purpose of cleaning, dusting and
watching the buildings, as mentioned in the
notification abolishing contract labour, they were
not covered by the judgment. It is also contended
that the case of such sweepers at the Car Park area
was not even referred to the Advisory Board under
section 10 of the Contract Labour (Prohibition) Act
and it was highly doubtful if they were covered by
the notification.
On the otherhand, learned senior counsel for
the petitioners contended that, going by the map of
the Airport, it was clear that these sweepers at
the Car Park area were clearly covered by the
notification and the judgment. The fact that the
names of these six employees were shown in the
annexures to the writ petition was proof that they
were covered by the judgment. The licencee is in
the position of a contractor.
In our view, these rival contentions involve
an interpretation of the order of this Court, the
notification and other relevant documents. We are
not deciding in this contempt case whether the
interpretation put forward by the respondents or
the petitioners is correct. That question has to
be decided in appropriate proceedings. For the
purpose of this contempt case, it is sufficient to
say that the non-absorption of these six sweepers
was bonafide and was based on an interpretation of
the above orders and notification etc. and cannot
be said to amount to ‘wilful disobedience’ of the
orders of this Court.
The contempt case is dismissed without costs
and without expressing any opinion on the right of
the petitioners to seek regularisation. It is open
to the petitioners to resort to appropriate
remedies in accordance with law.