, “ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILA‘sp'u'R , ’ DIVISION BENCH .Authtnity, Munmum Wages z Act . 1948aK‘orba, Distt.‘~Korba;(<3iG..). s PETI'rmNRj gE :A‘ v. Pam, Managing Farmer; fM/ INDFAB, FCI v R6ad,- Kmad, gNalco jNag‘a‘r, Angul Orrissa, H - v Sn Ram ”Narfayan Vya .24’1, ,. anand Nagar,wRa1p V k ur V :B.D. Enrghit;COmmercial‘Manager, v ThroggMahagmg, Partner ,M/‘S .. IDFA’B; FC‘I Road, K'ulad, ‘NALC ‘T’AngmrOrrissa " / ESPONDENT ' Norm for the Ve he ‘ folLQwihg T i 3 glgmaiiklldf {he Court was passed b ‘ u y ér '” As péf feference authcri®,'mid 1 ” 9 35' * s » ‘ r > h N O v “ ‘ RS sp“ I 4 " v case No. 42-MWA/O5 filed by Inspector under the Act of 1948 against respondents No. 1 85 2, preliminary objection relating maintainability of the case was tiled by contemnor No. 3 on behalf of the contemnors No. 1 8s 2 in which following alleged scandalous/contemptuous allegations have been made “it is ti respectfully submitted that the case is ill founded and is based on flimsy presumption of Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Korba in connivance with the Inspector under the minimum wages Act”. On the basis of aforesaid allegation show cause notice was issued by the authority under the Act of 1948 and after receiving reply present reference has been made by the authority under the Act of 1948. \k / 4. On perusal of reference, petition med on behalf of the Inspector under the Act of 1948 preliminary objection filed by contemnor No. 3 on behalf of the contemnors No. 1 85 2 which reveal that while filing preliminary objection contemnors have made allegation that case is ill founded and is based on flimsy presumption of Asstt. Labour Commissioner, Korba in connivance with the Inspector under the minimum wages Act. These two words namely flimsy presumption and in connivance has been made by the contemnors for Assistant“ w Labour Commissioner and Inspector under the Act of 1948 “l but they have not alleged or made any allegation against the 7' ' ‘ \ authority under the Act. Words used by contemnors may be ; contemptuous for Assistant Labour Commissioner or Inspector \ under the Act of 1948 but preliminaly objection clearly reveal ‘that contemnors have not made any scandals or contemptuous allegation against theauthority under the Act of 1948, who has made reference for initiation of criminal contempt proceeding against contemnors. In absence of any \ scandalous or contemptuous allegation or act committed by contemnors against the authority under the Act of 1948 who has made reference for initiation of contempt proceeding under Section 15 (2) of the Contempt of Courts Act, 197 1, the initiation of contempt proceeding would not be just and legal even if the authority was Court at the time of its function although, we are not opining any view regarding the fact that at the time of discharging its function authority was Court or not for the purpose of initiation of contempt proceeding. Consequently, in absence of any scandalous aand contemptuous allegations against authority who has made reference for initiation of contempt proceeding, present proceeding is liable to be drooped and is hereby dropped. Sdl- T. P. Sharma 1 i V ¥V*"'“\ Judge ‘ Sd/— R.L. Jhanwar Judge 1‘ ’V