INDIAN AIRPORTS EMPLOYEES UNION versus RANJAN CHATERJEE AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] 1 S.C.R. 326 · Decided: 02-02-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: M. JAGANNADHA RAO, D.P. WADHWA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
INDIAN AIRPORTS EMPLOYEES UNION 
v. 
RANJAN CHATERJEE AND ANR. 
FEBRUARY 2, 1991 
B 
[M. JAGANNADHA RAO AND D.P. WADHWA, JJ.] 
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 : Section 2(b ). 
Civil contempt-Wilful disobedience-Disobedience of order of 
C court-Supreme Coult directed regularisation of workmen upon abolition of 
contract labour system-However, certain workmen were not regularised on 
the ground that the said direction did not apply to these workmen-Held, in 
order to amount to "civil contempt" disobedience must be "wilful''-!/ dis-
obedience is based 011 interpretation of court's order, notification and other 
relevant documents it does not amount to wilful disobedience--Funher, the 
D question of regularisation has to be decided in appropriate proceedings-Con-
tract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, S.10-Labour Law. 
Words and Phrases : 
E 
"Civil contempt" and "Wilful disobedience"-Meaning of-ln the context 
of S.2(b) of the Contempt of Coult Act, 1971. 
F 
G 
In an earlier case this Court had given direction for regularisation 
of sweepers working at International Airport, National Airport Cargo 
Complex and Import Warehouse consequent upon the abolition of the 
contract labour system. However, six workmen, represented by the appel-
lant-Union, who were said to be working as sweepers in the Car Parking 
area of the International Airport at the time the notification abolishing 
contract labour came into effect were not regularised by the respondents. 
Hence, the appellant-Union had filed the present contempt petition. 
On behalf of the respondents it was contended that there was no 
specific directions in the judgment of this Court for absorption of these 
sweepers working in the Car Parking area; 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, 
H dusting and watching the buildings, as mentioned in the notification 
326 
)-
/ 
I.A.E. UNION v. R.CHATERJEE 
327 
abolishing contract labour, they were not covered by the judgment; that the A 
case of these sweepers was not even referred to the Advisory Board under 
Section 10 of the Contract Labour (Regulation and Abolition) Act, 1970, and 
that it was highly doubtful if they were covered by the notification. 
Dismissing the petition, this Court 
HELD : 1. 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. 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. [329-G-H) 
S.S. Roy v.State of Orissa, AIR (1960) SC 190 andAshok Kumar Singh 
v. State of Bihar, AIR (1992) SC 407, relied on. 
B 
c 
Air India Statutory Corporation v. United Labour Union, [1996) 9 D 
SCALE 70 and Masih Charan v. Union of India, W.P. (Civil) No. 219 of 
1993 dated 10.3.1997, referred to. 
2. The rival contentions raised in the present case involve an inter-
pretation of the order of this Court, the notification and other relevant 
documents. In this contempt case whether the interpretation put forward 
by the repondents or the petitioners is correct is not being decided. That 
question has to be decided in appropriate proceedings. For the purpose of 
ti1is contempt case, it is sufficient to say that the non-absorption of the six 
sweepers was bonafide and was based on an interpretation of the said 
orders notification etc. and cannot be said to amount to 'wilful 
disobedience' of the orders of this Court. [330-H; 331-A) 
3. No opinion is expressed on the right of the petitioners to seek 
regularisation. It is open to the petitioners to resort to appropriate 
remedies in accordance with law. [331-8) 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Contempt Petition Nos. 
301-303 of 1998. 
In 
Civil Appeal Nos. 2987-2989 of 1997. 
E 
F 
G 
H 
328 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(1999] 1 S.C.R. 
A 
From the Judgment and Order dated 27.3.96 of the Bombay High 
Court in W.P. Nos. 1494/89, 2362/90 and 504 of 1991. 
Ms. Indira Jaisingh, Ms. Anita Shenoy, Sanjay Ghose, A.K. Misra, 
Sanjay Parikh for the Petitioner/Appellant. 
B 
R. Sundaravardan, R.N. Keshwani, Chadra Kanta Nayak and R·am 
Lal Roy for the Respondent/Contemners. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
M. JAGANNADHA RAO, J. A Bench of this 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.