4 z H.L. DATTU. C. ' 1-1 of20! MATTER OE S.S. Babu Qr.No. 17/B, Avenue'B' Sector- 2, Bhiiai Nagar (C.G.) 1. Badruddln Queresiii Bunga!o'A'S\'o.6 32 Bungiow, Bhtias Nagar 2. Ramesh Kumar Lodhi Qr. No. 8/A, Street No. 8 Sector-10, Biiilai Nagar 3. D.C. Henary Qr.No.MiG-il-185 Hudco Coiony Shiiai Nagar 4. Ganesh Prasad Tiwari Qr. No. 35/A, Strset Aver.L Sector-2, Bhiial •c' Present: Shri Prashant Mishra, Additionai A.G. for the State/petltioner. Dr. N.K. Shukia, Sr. Advocate v/ith Shri Di'Ep Dubey, counsel for the respondent No.1 . Shri I. S.Sahu,counsei for respondents No. 2 So 4. it! [Passed on 13'" March, 2007) Thi This Court, based on the intimation received from ths industriai Court Chhattisgarh, Ralpur hss initiated suo s'nc.tu contempt proceedings against the respondents. (2) The information received by this Court is, ';hst, the resDondents, in spite of a positive direction issued in Rsrerence No.2/i.T.U.Act/S/2003, by the Tribunal has conducted the eiection to a particuiar Trade Unior, and therefore, have committed an sct of civ!l contempt and accordingly have referred the matter to this Court to initiate contempt proceedlngs against the respondsnts for theirwt'fui disobedience ofthe orders passed bythe Tribunal. (3) After registering the contempt petition, on 4"' Septembes1 200S the Court had issued notlcss to the respondsnts to appear personaily or through their counsei. Accordlngiy, tney nave snteres appearance and they have aiso filed the return. (4) in the return so fiied, firstly it is contended thst the elections were heid to theiTrade Union of the emotovees keeoing in vlew ihe directions issued by this Court in writ petition. Apart from ralsing this objection on mersts, it is contendeci tnat the proceedings initiated by this Court is barred by Slmitation as provided under the provisions of SecSion 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act. !n support of their statement, they have reiied on the observations rnads by the Apex Court in the case of PaiEav Sheth Vs. Custodian anss i1 (7) "45. it was submitted on behatf of the appeilant that even if t'ne Drovisions of Section 20 do not bar the Hia'n Court from taking action if oroceedings are initiated by the filing of an apDlication withln a perioci of one year of the contempt having bsen con'mitSsd, In the present case the period of limltation must bs regarded as having expired long before the fillng of the aoDiication bv the Custodian and, therefore, no action on such an application couid be teken by the Courf." (5) Shri Prashant Mishra, tearned Additional Advocate Generai appearing for the petitioner wouid submit that under the provjslons of Sectlon 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act, there js nothina llke iimitation and what is provided is to initiate proceedings under the srovlsions of Contempt of Courts Act within a reasonabie time and, therafore, the preliminary objections ralsed by the respondents have no merit. Per contra, Dr. N.K. Shukla, iearned Sr. Advocate appearing for respondent No.1 wouid submit that the Suorcme Court while considering the maximum duration wlthin which sn action can be initiated under Section 20 of the Act, has held that action must be initiated either by fiiing an aDplication or bv the Court issuing notice suo motu, withi" a period of one year. in supDort of that submission he takes me throucsh pars 44 of the iudgmenS ofthe Suoreme Courf in Paliav Sheth's case. (6) The first questlon that v/ould arise for conslderation m this contempt petition is, whether the suo motu proceecsing initiated is within time prescribed under Sectton 20 ofthe Act. (7) The admitted facts are, that, the Industrial Court in Reference No.2/!.T.U.AcV!/2003 had passed an order dated 02-08- 2003. In the said order the non-aDplicants in the contempt proceectings were restralned from hoiding any etection tiit the reference case is decided. Since, accord'ing to the Industria! Court, by holding election within a period of 4 months from ths date of the order the respondents have committed an act of contempt by dellberately and willful'y dlsobeying the orders passed. "\ '^\ Pa! This Court Tor the first time issued notice to the responcents !y on 04-09-2006 i.e. neariy after a pei'ioa' cf Swo years. In lav Shsfh case the Hon'b!e Apex Court in para 44 of the stated as under:- "44. Action for contemDt is divisible into hf»'o categories, name!y, that initiated suo motu by the court and that instituted otherwise than on the court's own motion. The mode of initiation jn each case would necessarity be different. Whjle in ths case of suo motu proceedings, it is the court itself which must Initjate by issuing a notice, in the other cases initistlon can oniy be by a party filing an application. In our opinion, therefore, the proper construction to be placed on Section 20 musf be that actlon must be initiated, elther by filing of an applscation or by ths court issuing notice suo motu, within a period of one ysar from the date on which the contempt is alleged to have been committed." (9) !n ths instant case, the Tr'bunal is of the view that the non- appiicants have disobeyed the orders passed by them dated 2-8-2003. After reference by them to initiate suo motu contsmpt proceedings, thls Court issued notlces to the non-applicants on!y on 4-9-2006, that is beyond the period of one year of ths aHsged contemDt said to have been committed bv ths non-applicants. ;n view of the law laid down by the Apex Court, 1 have no other altemative but to acceDt the contention canvassed bv the leamed counsel for the respondents. in view of the fact that the contempt procesdings were initiated against the non-appiicants beyond the time prescrsbed under Section 20 of the Act, these proceeciings \ cannot be continued further. Accordingly, they are dropped. Ordered accordingty. Sd/- Chief Justice