1992 (9) TMI 365 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues:
1. Special leave to appeal from the High Court's order.
2. Quashing of termination order and reinstatement with back salary.
3. Contempt proceedings without considering the prayer for stay.
4. Prejudice caused by contempt proceedings on pending appeal and stay application.
5. Direction to stay further contempt proceedings and consider the application for stay.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with the issue of granting special leave to appeal from the High Court's order dated July 3-7-1992, where the termination of services of the first Respondent was quashed, and reinstatement with back salary was directed. The Appellants had preferred an appeal to the Division Bench and sought a stay on the operation of the order. However, the Division Bench did not consider the appeal for admission or the prayer for interlocutory stay. Subsequently, contempt proceedings were initiated against the Appellants for not obeying the Single Judge's order. The Supreme Court found the High Court's approach improper as it insisted on contempt proceedings without considering the prayer for stay, which could render the appeal and stay application infructuous.

The Court emphasized that while filing an appeal and seeking a stay does not absolve the Appellants from obeying the order under appeal, the High Court's failure to consider the stay application could cause prejudice. The Court cited the State of J & K v. Mohd. Yaqoob Khan case, highlighting the importance of simultaneously considering the prayer for stay with contempt proceedings to prevent prejudice. In this case, the Appellants had to comply with the Single Judge's order under the threat of contempt, rendering their stay application virtually ineffective.

Consequently, the Supreme Court directed a stay on further contempt proceedings and instructed the High Court to dispose of the application for stay independently of the contempt developments. Depending on the outcome of the stay application, the question of whether the reinstatement should be reversed would arise. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach in handling contempt proceedings and stay applications to prevent prejudice and ensure fair consideration of legal remedies.