M. Lakshmi Narayanan and Others vs The Chairman, Oil and Natural Gas Commission and Others

AR. Lakshmanan, J.—This Letters Patent Appeal is directed against the order of K.S. Bakthavatsalam, J., in Contempt Application No.

149 of 1992 dated 5.3.1993.

The learned Judge dismissed the contempt application by observing in paragraph 6 as follows:

Having considered the arguments of Mr. S. Sampathkumar, the learned Counsel for the petitioners/applicants, and of Mr. K.T. Palpandian, the

learned Counsel for the respondents, I am satisfied that no contempt has been committed on the facts and circumstances of this case. I find that

there is no wilful disobedience on the part of the respondents in implementing the orders of this Court. It is true that there is some delay in

implementing the orders of this Court, but the fact remains that the petitioners have been reinstated in the respondent-commission. Whether the

petitioners are entitled to the back wages for the period from 1990 to 1992 or not, cannot be decided in this contempt application, since the scope

of the contempt application is very limited in deciding the question of paying the back wages for which the petitioners may be entitled to, according

to the learned Counsel for the petitioners. So, giving liberty to the petitioners to take appropriate proceedings for obtaining wages for two years, if

they are entitled to according to law and if they are so advised, this contempt application stands dismissed. However, there will be no order as to

costs.

Mr. S. Sampathkumar, learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that in spite of the order of the learned single Judge in W.P.No. 7209 of

1990 dated 9.4.1991 and confirmed by a Division Bench in W.A. No. 798 of 1991 dated 26.9.1991, the respondents are not implementing the

orders though the orders are very clear and unambiguous. Therefore, he seeks further clarification of the orders in the writ petition, writ appeal and

contempt application. We are unable to countenance the said contention since, in our opinion, the orders passed in the writ petition, writ appeal

and in the contempt application are clear and unambiguous and need no clarification at our hands. This apart, we are unable to exercise the power

of ex debito justitiae in view of the non-maintainability of the Letters Patent Appeal. The present appeal under? Clause 15 of the Letters Patent is

not, in our opinion, maintainable. The learned Judge while dismissing the contempt application has recorded a categoric finding that the appellants

have failed to prove that the respondents have committed any contempt.

The question for consideration is, as to whether the appeal is maintainable under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent. The proceeding in question is

one arising out of Contempt of Courts Act. In these proceedings there is no other matter decided or dealt with which can be said to fall outside the

purview of the Contempt of Courts Act. We have, therefore, no hesitation to hold that the present appeal is not maintainable. Three other Division

Benches of this Court have also taken the same view, and they are reported in Vidya Charan Shukla v. Tamil Nadu Olympic Association (1991) 2

L.W. 29; K. Karthikeyan v. The State Bank of Mysore L.P.A. No. 112 of 1995 dated 6.4.1995 and T. Marappan v. The Executive Engineer

(1996) 2 I.W. 117 in the last cited decision, one of us was a party to the Division Bench.

For the foregoing reasons, the Letters Patent Appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. No costs.