1995 (12) TMI 388 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
2. Whether the award of the Tribunal is executable under the Code of Civil Procedure.
3. Whether the application is barred under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act due to the expiry of one year from the date of the order.
4. Whether the alleged act of non-compliance constitutes wilful and deliberate contempt under Clause (b) of Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act.
5. Whether the application contravenes Article 14 of the Constitution of India.
6. Whether the petition is maintainable without being supported by an affidavit.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Subordination of Tribunal to High Court:
The primary issue was whether the Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court under Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The respondents argued that the Tribunal is not subordinate, relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in Alahar Co-operative Credit Service Society v. Shyam Lal, which held that the Labour Court is not a Court subordinate to the High Court. However, the Court distinguished the case, noting that the Full Bench of the Gujarat High Court had previously held that the Industrial Tribunal is a Court within the meaning of Section 2 read with Section 10 of the Contempt of Courts Act. The Court concluded that the Tribunal in question possesses the trappings of a Court, including the power to give definitive judgments with finality and authoritativeness, and thus is subordinate to the High Court.

2. Executability of Tribunal's Award:
The respondents contended that the award is executable under the Code of Civil Procedure as per Clause 14 of the Gujarat Primary Education Tribunal (Procedure) Order, 1987. The Court examined the provisions and concluded that the Tribunal has the inherent power to enforce its own orders, as the absence of such power would render the Tribunal's decisions ineffective. Clause 14 was interpreted to mean that the Tribunal should follow the procedure laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure for execution of its orders.

3. Bar under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act:
The respondents argued that the application is barred under Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act as it was initiated after one year from the date of the order. The Court clarified that the action was initiated within the prescribed period as the notice was issued on 10-10-1994, soon after the application was filed on 6-10-1994. The issuance of notice was considered as the initiation of proceedings, thus falling within the one-year limitation period.

4. Wilful and Deliberate Contempt:
The respondents claimed that the non-compliance was not wilful or deliberate, as they intended to challenge the order before the Supreme Court and were awaiting the certified copy of the judgment. The Court noted that there was no stay granted by either the single Judge or the Division Bench, and the intention to file a Special Leave Petition does not absolve the respondents from complying with the order. However, considering the confusion regarding the continuation of the statement made by Senior Counsel in the Supreme Court, the Court concluded that the non-compliance could not be deemed wilful.

5. Contravention of Article 14:
The respondents argued that if the Code of Civil Procedure is not applicable, the proceedings are ultra vires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The Court rejected this contention, stating that the application of the Code of Civil Procedure does not create any discrimination and is consistent with the legislative intent to provide a complete and logical adjudication process.

6. Maintainability of Petition without Affidavit:
The respondents contended that the petition is not maintainable as it was not supported by an affidavit, as required by Rule 7(c) of the Contempt of Court Rules. The Court observed that the petitioners, being primary school teachers and party-in-person, had verified the petition with solemn affirmation. The Court held that non-compliance with the procedural requirement of an affidavit is an irregularity, not an illegality, and should not obstruct the administration of justice.

Conclusion:
The petition for contempt was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The Court concluded that the Tribunal is a Court subordinate to the High Court, its awards are executable under the Code of Civil Procedure, and the non-compliance by the respondents, though disobedience, was not wilful. The procedural irregularity regarding the affidavit did not invalidate the petition.