IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR FRIDAY, THE 20TH JUNE 2008 / 30TH JYAISHTA 1930 Con.Case(C).No. 388 of 2008(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.28836/2005 Dated 16/11/2007 .................... PETITIONER: --------------------- KOSALA RAMDAS, AGED 74, S/O K.P.DAS, RESIDING AT TC NO: 1453,TVM., GENERAL SECRETARY, KSE BOARD PETTY CONTRACTORS AND CONTRACT LINE WORKERS UNION, NANTHANCODU, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.K.S.MADHUSOODANAN SRI.T.V.JAYAKUMAR NAMBOODIRI SRI.THUSHAR NIRMAL SARATHY SRI.M.M.VINOD KUMAR SMT.K.M.RAMYA RESPONDENT: ------------------------ SUBIRE.M., S/O MUHAMMED ISMAEL,AGED 51, SECRETARY KSE.BOARD, VAIDHYUTHI BHAVAN, PATTOM, THIRUVANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.N.N.SUGUNAPALAN (SR.) - R1 SRI.S.SUJIN - R1 SRI. ASOK M.CHERIYAN, SC, KSEB THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 20/06/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: Kss K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, J. ----------------------------------------- CONT.CASE (C) NO. 388 OF 2008-S ----------------------------------------- JUDGMENT The petitioner has approached this Court, alleging that the respondent has failed to implement Annexure-I judgment of this Court. It was a judgment dismissing the writ petition filed by the K.S.E.B., challenging an award of the Labour Court. While disposing of that writ petition, certain clarifications were issued concerning the implementation of the award. The respondent took up the stand that no positive directions were issued in Annexure-I judgment, concerning the implementation of the award. Therefore, the delay in implementing that award, pending disposal of the Writ Appeal filed by the K.S.E.B., will not amount to contempt of court, it is submitted. In answer, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the order of the Labour Court has merged with the order of this Court, passed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the non- implementation of the award of the Labour Court will amount to non- implementation of the judgment of this Court. 2. Prima facie, I find it difficult to accept the said proposition canvassed by the learned counsel for the petitioner, though he tried to support his contention, relying on the decision of the Apex Court in COC 388/08 2 S.Shanmugavel Nadar v. State of T.N. [(2002)8 SCC 361]. But, I notice that the above decision of the Apex Court arises from a Rent Control matter and that too, concerning the power of the Apex Court under Article 136 of the Constitution of India, which obviously, is an appellate power. The principle laid down in the said decision appears to be not applicable in this case, which is concerning the decision of a Single Judge in a judicial review matter. Even assuming such a view is possible, still, that is not sufficient to initiate contempt proceedings under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Section 2(b) of the Act, which defines civil contempt, deals with wilful disobedience to any judgment. Section 13 further provides that a contemner can be punished,if only it is found that the contempt is of such a nature that it substantially interferes, or tends substantially to interfere with the due course of justice. Going by the stand taken by the respondent, I feel that a prima facie case is not made out for referring the matter to the Division Bench for further proceedings. Accordingly, the contempt application is closed. But, this will not affect the right of the petitioner to take appropriate proceedings before the implementation of the COC 388/08 3 award by the K.S.E.B. 20th June, 2008. K.BALAKRISHNAN NAIR, JUDGE. Nm/