SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC & ORS. versus M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS.

Citation: [2014] 4 S.C.R. 27 · Decided: 04-02-2014 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: P. SATHASIVAM · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 10 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2014) 4 S.C.R. 27 
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC & ORS. 
A 
v. 
M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS. 
(Civil Appeal No. 1816 of 2014) 
FEBRUARY 4, 2014 
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI, RANJAN GOGOi AND 
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH JJ.] 
CONTEMPT OF COURT: 
Contempt petition - Scope of - High Court in contempt 
jurisdiction directing creation of supernumerary posts - Held: 
B 
c 
Courts must not travel beyond the four comers of the order 
which is alleged to have been flouted nor should it enter into 
questions that have not been dealt with or decided in the 0 
judgment or the order violation of which is alleged - No order 
or direction supplemental to what has been already 
expressed should be issued by the court while exercising 
jurisdiction in the domain of the contempt law -- Courts must 
act with utmost restraint before compelling the executive to 
E 
create additional posts - In the instant case, the impugned 
direction of High Court for creation of supernumerary posts 
of Marine Assistant Radio Operator amounts to 
supplementing the initial order passed in the writ petition --
The issue is one of jurisdiction and not of justification -
F 
Whether the direction issued would be justified by way of 
review or in exercise of any other jurisdiction does not require 
consideration in the instant case - An alternative direction had 
been issued by High Court in writ petition and appellants have 
complied with the same - They cannot be, therefore, 
understood to have acted in willful disobedience of the said G 
order -- Order passed in contempt petition as well as 
impugned order passed in contempt appeal are set aside. 
The respondents were engaged as Radio Operators 
27 
H 
28 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 
A 
on contract basis in the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation 
Ltd. (Corporation). By a notification dated 08.09.1994 
issued u/s 10(1) of the Contract Labour (Regulation and 
Abolition) Act, 1970, employment of contract labour in 
various works in the Corporation, including the work of 
B 
Radio Operators was prohibited. Writ petitions were filed 
seeking a direction to the Corporation to treat the 
contract Radio Operators at par with the regular Marine 
Assistant Radio Operators. The stand of the Corporation, 
inter alia, was that with the advancement of technology 
c there was no necessity for the service of Radio 
Operators. Ultimately, by order dated 2.8.2006 in W.P. No. 
21518 of 2000, the single Judge of the High Court directed 
the Corporation to absorb the respondent-workers as 
Marine Assistant Radio Operator and, if there were no 
0 
such posts, to give them the scale of pay as applicable 
to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators. The appeals of 
the Corporation were dismissed by the Division Bench 
of the High Court as also by the Supreme Court. Alleging 
non-implementation and disobedience of the order dated 
E 2.8.2006 passed in W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 as affirmed by 
the orders in appeals, a contempt petition was filed before 
the High Court wherein the impugned direction for 
creation of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant 
Radio Operator was made by the order dated 19.1.2012. 
The said order was affirmed by a Division Bench of the 
F 
High Court by the impugned order. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The power vested in the High Courts as 
G well as this Court to punish for contempt is a special and 
rare power available both under the Constitution as well 
as the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. It is a drastic power 
which, if misdirected, could even curb the liberty of the 
individual charged with commission of contempt. The 
H very nature of the power casts a sacred duty in the courts 
SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD. ONGC v. M. 29 
GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN 
to exercise the same with the greatest of care and caution. A 
Courts must not, therefore, travel beyond the four corners 
of the order which is alleged to have been flouted or enter 
into questions that have not been dealt with or decided 
in the judgment or the order violation of which is alleged. 
Only such directions which are explicit in a judgment or B 
order or are plainly self-evident ought to be taken into 
account for the purpose of consideration as to whether 
there has been any disobedience or willful violation of the 
same. Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the plea 
of equities can be considered. Courts must also ensure c 
that while considering a contempt plea the power 
available to the court in other corrective jurisdictions

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