Cont.Cas(C) 536/2008 Page 1 of 5 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + Cont.Cas(C) No. 536/2008 Date of Decision : 22.05.2009 Vinod Kumar …… Petitioner Through: Mr. Anand Nandan, Advocate Versus K.S. Mehra & Ors. …… Respondents Through: Nemo CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K.SHALI, J 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? YES 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? NO 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? NO J U D G M E N T V.K.SHALI, J (Oral) 1. This is a contempt petition filed by the petitioner under Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 read with Article 215 of Constitution of India. The case of the petitioner is that he is one of the petitioners in a writ petition bearing No. 8288/2007 in which the following order was passed:- “Ms. Amita Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents says that the petitioners are the seasonal workers. They shall be paid their salary for the period they have worked with the respondents, if not already paid, within two weeks from today.” Cont.Cas(C) 536/2008 Page 2 of 5 2. Thereafter, notice was issued to the MCD which was accepted by Ms. Amita Gupta, learned counsel for the respondents and the matter was directed to be listed on 5th November, 2008. 3. The grievance of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that though the petitioner has worked as a Domestic Breeder Checker with the respondents/MCD but he has not been paid salary despite the order dated 8th August, 2008 w.e.f. 1st December, 2007 till the time of filing of the petition. 4. The petition has been filed on 9th September, 2008. However, during the course of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the respondents have paid salary for some period which is not specifically mentioned in the petition, but despite this it tantamounts to willful disobedience of the orders of the Court for which an action be initiated for committing contempt of Court against the respondents and they be punished in accordance with law. 5. The respondents in their counter affidavit have not denied that the petitioner had filed a writ petition, however, it is explained in the preliminary objection that order of status quo with regard to the services of the petitioner was passed on 22nd November, 2007 where the respondents had taken the stand that the petitioner and his other colleagues who had filed the writ petition, they were engaged seasonal worker by the MCD during the period of breeding season of mosquito causing Dengue fever. It was stated that there is no violation of the order of status quo as the services of the petitioner or his colleagues are Cont.Cas(C) 536/2008 Page 3 of 5 not dispensed with in violation of the order dated 22nd November, 2007. It is also stated that there is no deliberate or willful intention of non- compliance of the order dated 8th August, 2008 in not paying the salary of the petitioner. The stand of the respondents is that for the period of engagement of the petitioner they have been paid their salary. 6. I have gone through the pleadings of the parties and considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 7. There is no doubt about the fact that a person would be prima facie guilty of an offence of contempt of Court if the orders of the Court are willfully contumaciously disobeyed by a party, but what is needed to bring the matter within four corners of contempt of court is that there must be a Court order. If one looks at the order dated 8th August, 2008 on which the entire petition is based, the portion which is attributed to be an order of the Court, is in fact a statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents/MCD. The said statement reads as under:- “That Ms. Amita Gupta, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents says that the petitioners are the seasonal workers. They shall be paid their salary for the period they have worked with the respondents, if not already paid, within two weeks from today.” 8. This observation to pay the salary within a period of two weeks is not a direction passed by the Court, but this is only a statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents/MCD which in the event of being not complied with cannot be construed to be contempt because Cont.Cas(C) 536/2008 Page 4 of 5 there is no order of the Court. Further this statement is also not in the form of an undertaking. 9. Even if it is assumed that this is an order of the Court that the salary was to paid to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of the said order dated 8th August, 2008 even then the said order is not to be seen in isolation because the learned counsel for the respondents/MCD has specifically stated that the petitioners are seasonal workers that means they are not engaged continuously and in the reply affidavit it has been specifically stated that their services are being availed only during the breeding season of mosquito which causes dengue fever. If that be the position obviously the question for which period the petitioner has worked and if so to what salary he is entitled becomes a disputed question of fact which cannot be got adjudicated in the contempt petition. There has to be a definite and a specific direction in the order of the Court of which there is allegation of willful disobedience so as to enrope the respondents within the four corners of contempt of Court. Conversely in case the order of the Court is ambiguous or subject to two different interpretations then there can be no contempt. In the instant case also even if we assume that order dated 8th August, 2008 is an order of the Court what was to be paid to the petitioner and for what period is not specifically mentioned in the order. Therefore, I am of the considered view that there is no prima facie case for initiation of contempt proceedings is made out against the Cont.Cas(C) 536/2008 Page 5 of 5 respondents for having willfully or contumaciously disobeyed order dated 8th August, 2008 passed by this Court, and accordingly, the contempt notice discharged and petition is dismissed. May 22, 2009 V.K. SHALI, J. KP