AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
R.S. Chauhan, J.—The petitioner has filed this contempt petition for non-compliance of the judgment dated 10.9.2007 passed by this Court.
The contempt petition has been filed on 9.1.2014. According to Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, a contempt petition has to be filed within a period of one year from the date when the contempt occurs. Therefore, prima facie, this contempt petition is hit by limitation, as it has been filed after an inordinate delay of six and a half years.
Mr. Amin Ali, the learned counsel for the petitioner has pleaded that repeatedly he had brought the judgment dated 10.9.2007 to the notice of the respondent-contemnor and repeatedly the respondent-contemnor had been assuring him that the judgment would be implemented. According to him, the last communication received by him is of 18.12.2009. Therefore, the period of limitation should be counted from the said date. Hence, according to him, contempt petition is well within the period of limitation. Moreover, according to him, since, the petitioner happens to be a poor person, he could not approach the court in time. Furthermore, he does concede that the petitioner had pursued his remedy u/s 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, and that the petitioner has been reinstated on the post of Assistant-cum-Chowkidar on daily wages.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner.
Even if, the limitation period were to be counted from 18.12.2009, even then, the present contempt petition having been submitted on 9.1.2014 is delayed by five years. Therefore, obviously the contempt petition is hit by limitation.
Moreover, poverty is no defence for limitation. For, poverty does not extend the period of limitation u/s 20 of the Act. Further, in case the petitioner could pursue his remedy u/s 29 of the Industrial Disputes Act, then he cannot plead that he is too poor to pursue his remedy before this Court.
Since, the petitioner has been reinstated, this Court is of the opinion that the present contempt petition is a frivolous one. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the present contempt petition is not maintainable on the ground of delay.
The contempt petition is, hereby, dismissed.