9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 1307 - SC - Indian LawsHigh Court s contempt jurisdiction to create supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators - treat the contract Radio Operators at par with the regular Marine Assistant Radio Operators - Held that - Direction of the High Court for creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator cannot be countenanced. Not only the Courts must act with utmost restraint before compelling the executive to create additional posts the impugned direction virtually amounts to supplementing the directions contained in the order of the High Court dated 02.8.2006. The alterative direction i.e. to grant parity of pay could very well have been occasioned by the stand taken by the Corporation with regard to the necessity of keeping in existence the cadre itself in view of the operational needs of the Corporation. If despite the specific stand taken by the Corporation in this regard the High Court was of the view that the respondents should be absorbed as Marine Assistant Radio Operator nothing prevented the High Court from issuing a specific direction to create supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator. The same was not done. If that be so the direction to create supernumerary posts at the stage of exercise of the contempt jurisdiction has to be understood to be an addition to the initial order passed in the Writ Petition. The argument that such a direction is implicit in the order dated 02.08.2006 is self defeating. Neither is such a course of action open to balance the equities i.e. not to foreclose the promotional avenues of the petitioners as vehemently urged by Shri Rao. The issue is one of jurisdiction and not of justification.
Issues Involved:
1. Direction to create supernumerary posts by the High Court. 2. Compliance with the alternative direction of granting parity of pay. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in contempt proceedings. Detailed Analysis: 1. Direction to Create Supernumerary Posts by the High Court: The core issue in this appeal is the direction by the Madras High Court to create supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators (MARO) in its contempt jurisdiction. The respondents, initially engaged as contract Radio Operators in the Corporation, sought regularization following the abolition of contract labor under Section 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970. The High Court, in its order dated 2.8.2006, directed the Corporation to absorb the respondents as MAROs with effect from 8.9.1994, or alternatively, to provide pay protection equivalent to MAROs if no such posts were available. The High Court's subsequent direction in the contempt proceedings to create supernumerary posts was challenged by the Corporation. 2. Compliance with the Alternative Direction of Granting Parity of Pay: The Corporation complied with the alternative direction by absorbing the respondents as Junior Helpers and providing pay protection equivalent to MAROs. This compliance was in line with the High Court's order dated 2.8.2006, which allowed for pay parity as an alternative if MARO posts were unavailable. The Corporation argued that the operational requirements did not justify the continuation of MARO posts, particularly in the Southern Region Business Centre (SRBC), where offshore operations were minimal. Consequently, the respondents were given pay protection and deployed as Supernumerary Helpers. 3. Jurisdiction of the High Court in Contempt Proceedings: The Supreme Court emphasized that the power to punish for contempt is a special and rare power, which must be exercised with utmost care and caution. It stressed that courts should not travel beyond the explicit directions of the original order when adjudicating contempt pleas. The direction to create supernumerary posts was deemed to be beyond the scope of the High Court's contempt jurisdiction, as it supplemented the original order dated 2.8.2006. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court had the opportunity to issue a specific direction for creating supernumerary posts in the initial order but chose not to do so. Conclusion: The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order directing the creation of supernumerary posts, stating that the Corporation had complied with the alternative direction of pay parity. The Court held that the High Court's direction in the contempt proceedings was an impermissible addition to the original order and that the appellants had not acted in willful disobedience. The appeal was allowed, and the orders dated 19.01.2012 and 11.07.2012 were set aside.
|
