http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 3  

PETITIONER: INDIAN AIRPORTS EMPLOYEES UNION

       Vs.

RESPONDENT: RANJAN CHATTERJEE & ANOTHER.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:       02/02/1999

BENCH: M. JAGANNADHA RAO., & D.P. WADHWA.

JUDGMENT:

M.JAGANNADHA RAO,J.

             A  Bench  of  this Court of which  one  of  us          (Justice  D.P.Wadhwa)  was a member disposed  of  a          batch  of Civil Appeals on 11.4.1997 giving various          directions.   The  said Appeals were filed  against          the  judgment  of  the   Bombay  High  Court  dated          27.3.1996   in  W.P.Nos.    1494/89,  2362/90   and          504/1991.  In the matters now before us relating to          contempt  of Court, we are concered only with  W.P.          No.2362 of 1990.

             The  workmen  who were concered with the  said          Civil  Appeal arising out of W.P.  No.2362 of  1990          and   who  filed  the   said  writ  petition   were          represented  by the International Airport Authority          Employees   Union.   As  the   writ  petition   was          dismissed,  the said Union filed the Civil  Appeal.          This  Court allowed the Civil Appeals on  11.4.1997          following  the  judgment  in  AIR  INDIA  Statutory          Corporation Etc.  vs.  United Labour Union & Others          [1996  (9) SCALE 70] and held that "consequent upon          the  abolition  of the contract labour system  with          effect   from   9.12.1976,   the  appellants   were          entitled, in the light of the above judgment in AIR          INDIA  case, to be regularised w.e.f.  the date  of          judgment  of  the High Court (i.e.   27.3.1996)  as          held in Masih Charan & Others vs.  Union of India &          Others in Writ Petition(Civil) No.219 of 1993 dated          10.3.1997."

             In  the cases argued before us, arguments were          confined  to 6 workmen, Elizabeth D’Souza,  Nagubai          Kurade,  Shoba  Babu  Gurav,  Laxmi  Babu  Mirikar,          Dwarkabai  Arke and Vishravathi Waghmare, who  were          said  to be working as sweepers in the Car  Parking          area  of  the Bombay International Airport  at  the          time  the  notification abolishing contract  labour          came  into  effect on 9.12.1976.  They  claim  that          inasmuch  as  the  benefit  given to  them  by  the          Supreme  Court in its judgment above-mentioned, has          not  been  granted, the respondents have  committed          Civil Contempt.

             According  to  the learned senior counsel  for

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 3  

        the   petitioners,   Ms.    Indira   Jaising,   the          respondents were obliged to regularise the services          of  these six sweepers by way of absorbing them  as          employees  of  the Corporation and as the same  was          not  done, there is clear contempt of the orders of          this Court dated 11.4.1997 in the Civil Appeal.  It          was  pointed  out  that  the  names  of  these  six          employees  were  shown in the annexure to the  writ          petition  No.2362 of 1990 filed in the High  Court.          There  was  no reason as to why these six  sweepers          were not regularised.

             On  the  other hand, according to the  learned          senior   counsel   for     the   respondents   Sri.          R.Sundaravardan,   the   matter   turns   upon   an          interpretation  of the notification of the  Central          Government dated 9.12.1976, as to whether these six          sweepers  can be said to be among those  ‘sweeping,          cleaning,  dusting and watching the buildings owned          or  occupied  by  establishment" and  also  on  the          interpretation of the judgment in the Civil Appeals          dated  11.4.1997.   It  is argued  that  these  six          employees,  if  they were engaged by a licensee  of          the   respondent,  employed  in   connection   with          "Management of Car Parks" then these sweepers would          not  come with the purview of the notification  nor          within  the  scope of the judgment of  this  Court.          Any  bonafide action on the part of the respondents          based  on an interpretation of the notification and          judgment  of  this  Court, it is argued,  will  not          amount  to breach of the orders of this Court.   It          is also stated that if, indeed, this Court declares          in  appropriate proceedings that these six sweepers          are  also  to  be  absorbed  and  regularised,  the          respondents have no objection to do so.

             The  point for consideration is:  whether  the          respondents  can be said to have committed contempt          of  the  orders of this Court in Civil Appeal  Nos.          2987-89 of 1997 dated 11.4.1997?

             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.   [S.S.Roy  vs.          State  of Orissa & Others AIR 1960 SC 190].   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  [Ashok  Kumar Singh &  Others  vs.          State of Bihar & Others AIR 1992 SC 407].

             In  this  contempt case, we do not propose  to          decide  whether  these six sweepers do fall  within          the  scope  of the notification dated 9.12.1976  or          the  judgment of this Court dated 11.4.1997.   That          is   a  question  to  be  decided  in   appropriate          proceedings.

             It  is true that these six sweepers’ names are          shown  in the annexure to the W.P.  No.2362 of 1990          in  the  High Court.  But, the question is  whether          there  is wilful disobedience to the orders of this          Court.    In   the  counter    affidavit   of   the

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 3  

        respondents, it is stated that there is no specific          direction  in  the  judgment  of  this  Court   for          absorption  of  these sweepers, if any, working  in          the Car Park area, and that the directions given in          the  judgment  were  in  relation  to  the  sweeper          working  at  the ‘International  Airport,  National          Airport Cargo Complex and Import Warehouse’.  It is          stated  that the cleaners employed by the  licensee          in  charge  of Maintenance of the Car Park area  do          not,  on a proper interpretation of the order, come          within  the  sweep  of  these  directions.   It  is          contended  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, dusting  and          watching  the  buildings,  as   mentioned  in   the          notification  abolishing contract labour, they were          not  covered by the judgment.  It is also contended          that the case of such sweepers at the Car Park area          was  not even referred to the Advisory Board  under          section 10 of the Contract Labour (Prohibition) Act          and  it was highly doubtful if they were covered by          the notification.

             On  the otherhand, learned senior counsel  for          the petitioners contended that, going by the map of          the  Airport,  it was clear that these sweepers  at          the  Car  Park  area were clearly  covered  by  the          notification  and the judgment.  The fact that  the          names  of  these  six employees were shown  in  the          annexures  to the writ petition was proof that they          were  covered by the judgment.  The licencee is  in          the position of a contractor.

             In  our view, these rival contentions  involve          an  interpretation of the order of this Court,  the          notification  and other relevant documents.  We are          not  deciding  in  this contempt case  whether  the          interpretation  put  forward by the respondents  or          the  petitioners is correct.  That question has  to          be  decided  in appropriate proceedings.   For  the          purpose  of this contempt case, it is sufficient to          say  that the non-absorption of these six  sweepers          was  bonafide and was based on an interpretation of          the  above orders and notification etc.  and cannot          be  said to amount to ‘wilful disobedience’ of  the          orders of this Court.

             The  contempt case is dismissed without  costs          and  without expressing any opinion on the right of          the petitioners to seek regularisation.  It is open          to  the  petitioners  to   resort  to   appropriate          remedies in accordance with law.