1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Letters Patent Appeal No.365/2009 in Contempt Petition No.11/2006 in Writ Petition No.2338/2004 (Decided) 1. Premlal s/o Hiraman Meshram, Secretary, Saraswati Education Society, Post : Thanegaon, Tahsil : Tiroda, District : Gondia. 2. Parasram Dulichand Suryawanshi, President, Saraswati Education Society and Head Master, Swamy Vidyalaya, Dongargaon Khadan, Post : Chikhli, Tahsil : Tirora, District – Gondia. .. Appellants .. Versus .. Gaurishankar s/o Jaipal Patle, Aged : Major, Occupation – Service, Business, R/o. At & Post : Chikhli, Tahsil – Tiroda, District – Gondia. .. Respondent .......... Mr. S.R. Deshpande, Advocate for the appellants. .......... Coram : A.P. Lavande & P.D. Kode, JJ. Date of reserving the order : 21.8.2009. Date of pronouncing the order : 24.8.2009 ORDER Heard. 2 2. By the present letters patent appeal challenge has been thrown to common order order dated 5th August, 2009 passed by learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition No. 11 of 2006 and 12 of 2006. The prayer is made for setting aside the said order and so also interim orders dated 6.5.2008, 22.9.2008, 3.12.2008 and 8.4.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in Contempt Petition No.12 of 2006. 3. The facts and events occasioned to pass the order impugned with relevant part of the said order bereft of unnecessary details are as under:- The lis initiated by respondent- terminated employee of the Education Society of which the appellant is the Secretary after series of rounds has culminated in finality of order dated 31.3.2004 passed by the School Tribunal in a proceeding taken by the respondent challenging his termination. By the said order School Tribunal had directed appellants and other office bearers of the said society to reinstate the respondent with continuity in his service with back wages. On failure to make the compliance of the said order, the respondent had taken up the contempt proceeding during which upon the statement made by the counsel for the appellants upon the instructions from the appellants present in the Court, 3 vide order dated 8.2.2008 time was extended by the learned Single Judge for one year to deposit the arrears of salary amounting to Rs.3,40,891/- as worked out by the appellants. The same was further extended by learned Single Judge by order dated 6.5.2008. Thereafter interim order dated 22.9.2008, 3.12.2008 and 8.4.2009 came to be passed in the said proceeding and ultimately the order impugned dated 5.8.2009 was passed by the learned Single Judge. The most relevant part of the said order upon which the submissions of learned counsel for the appellants are centered run as under:- “Considering the totality of the circumstances, time till 21st August, 2009, is granted to the respondents Nos.1 and 2 (Premlal Meshram, Secretary Saraswati Education Socieity, Post Thanegaon,Tahsil Tirora, Distt. Gondia, and Parasram Dulichand Suryawanshi, President Saraswati Education Society & Head Master, Swami Vidyalaya, Dongagaon/Khadki, Post Chikkhgali, Tahsil Tirora, Distt. Gondia) to deposit that amount in this Court, may be under protest, till the contentions raised by him are considered by this Court. It is made clear that the default would invite consequential action. S.O. 24th August, 2009.” 4. The learned counsel for the appellants assailed main order impugned and so also other interim orders sought to be quashed upon by-fold contentions i.e. a) By the order impugned, appellants being virtually deprived of making a defence without taking into consideration of 4 themselves being not liable to make payment in such a proceeding and such an order thus amounting to interim judgment is liable to be quashed and set aside in a present LPA. In the said respect, learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision in a case of Midnapore Peoples' Co-op. Bank Ltd. And ors. .vs. Chunilal Nanda and ors. reported in AIR 2006 Supreme Court 2190; b) The learned Single Judge having miserably missed significant aspect of the respondent having filed the Contempt Petition No.4 of 2005 before the School Tribunal and the School Tribunal vide its order dated 19.10.2005 amongst other having given liberty to the respondent to file a complaint under Section 13 of MEPS Act and accordingly such a criminal complaints being filed by the respondent and the office bearers of the society facing such a proceeding and thus the said order dated 31.3.2004 being executable order and the respondent having taken steps for execution of the same and hence the proceeding in contempt before the learned Single Judge being not maintainable. In support of the said proposition the learned Counsel placed reliance upon the decision in a case of Mohammad Salam Anamul Haque .vs. S.A.Azmi and others reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 249; Vilas Shankarrao Deshmukh and another .vs. S.A. Ghode reported in 2001 (1) Mh.L.J. 261. 5. Having considered submissions advanced and having perused the record we are of considered opinion of there being 5 absolutely no scope for any interference with the orders impugned in the present appeal. We are of such an opinion as careful perusal of the order impugned and particularly the relevant part of the same heavily relied by the learned counsel for the appellants and quoted hereinabove nowhere stipulates of the appellants being deprived of their defences in the said proceedings as tried to be canvassed. As a matter of fact said order itself indicating of appellants being permitted to make deposit of back wages under protest until contentions raised by the appellants were considered by the Court will not drive to the conclusion as canvassed on behalf of the appellants merely because of the further observations made “default would invite consequential action.” Needless to add consequential action being the defence of the appellants would be struck off is premature inference drawn by the appellants. 6. In addition to the aforesaid, we are of such considered opinion as the orders impugned in no uncertain terms reveal that the same was passed upon the statements from time to time made by the learned counsel for the appellants upon the instructions taken from the appellants and/or office bearers of the Education Society. Having regard to the same it is difficult to find any fault with the order impugned or the interim orders passed regarding deposit of the amount of the back wages as worked out by the appellants, apart from such a conduct on part of the appellants dis- entitling them to throw the challenge to the orders passed/ 6 directions given upon their own statement made during course of proceeding before the Court. 7. Having regard to the aforesaid we do not deem it necessary to make any dilation about other submission canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellants which apparently relates to the merits of the matter required to to be considered by the learned Single Judge. Thus we find no merit in present LPA and dismiss the same in limine. 8. At this stage Mr. P.N. Mehta, learned counsel for the appellants, seeks stay of the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge for a period of three weeks. Since we have dismissed the Letters Patent Appeal, question of granting of stay of impugned order does not arise and the prayer is rejected. JUDGE JUDGE Gulande .......