w w w . L a w y e r S e r v i c e s . i n



K. Senthilnathan v/s Ponmudi The General Manager(Operation & Administration) The State Express Transport Corporation Ltd.


Company & Directors' Information:- A T EXPRESS INDIA LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U93030DL2009PLC193660

Company & Directors' Information:- N R EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U63040WB1999PTC089271

Company & Directors' Information:- P J EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63040WB1995PTC075515

Company & Directors' Information:- G M S EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120KA2006PTC040159

Company & Directors' Information:- U C EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64120MH2004PTC148038

Company & Directors' Information:- R R EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U97000DL2014PTC267284

Company & Directors' Information:- S F EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Active] CIN = U64120DL2015PTC279322

Company & Directors' Information:- J. K. EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U63090GJ2012PTC070288

Company & Directors' Information:- D K G EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U15499UP1982PTC005721

Company & Directors' Information:- P AND G EXPRESS PRIVATE LIMITED [Strike Off] CIN = U64120MH2003PTC139461

    Contempt Petition No. 39 of 2019

    Decided On, 20 March 2019

    At, High Court of Judicature at Madras

    By, THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM

    For the Petitioner: Concious Ilango, V. Kasinatha Bharathi, Advocates. For the Respondent: P. Kannan Kumar, Advocate.



Judgment Text

(Prayer: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, to punish the respondent for her willful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 01.11.2018 made in W.P.No.15130 of 2018.)

The present Contempt Petition is filed to punish respondent for willful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 01.11.2018 made in W.P.No.15130 of 2018.

2. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Contempt petitioner urged this Court by stating that the respondents have now passed an order contrary to the spirit of the order passed by this Court in paragraph 3 of the order of this Court dated 01.11.2018, enumerates the facts of the case.

3. When the learned Standing counsel for the respondents, at the time of arguments, stated that the case of the writ petitioner also would be considered, if any representation is submitted. Taking note of the submissions, this Court passed an order, directing the respondents to consider the representation and so also, directed the writ petitioner to submit representations, setting out his grievances.

4. This apart, the Court has said that the cases considered on similar circumstances are also to be taken note of, while considering the case of the writ petitioner. Without adhering to the directions issued by this Court, now the respondents had rejected the claim of the writ petitioner in proceedings dated 27.11.2018. Thus, the same is to be considered as violation of the order of this Court and the respondents are liable to be punished.

5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent states that the writ petitioner submitted his representation on 13.11.2018, which was carefully considered by the respondent, giving strict obedience to the orders passed by the Hon’ble High Court. In as much as the final order of the Hon'ble High Court, directed this respondent to consider the facts and circumstances it came to the knowledge that Thiru.Ramesh obeyed the orders of transfer and joined the new branch and gave the representation. On examining the representation, the respondent was fully convinced that the existence of cancer to one of the family members, viz., his mother and his necessity to be near the family member, viz., his mother was the moot basis for considering and serving a re-transfer order. In addition though Thiru.Ramesh joined the Madurai Branch on 12.06.2018. He worked for about 4 months in the place and submitted his representation dated 03.10.2018 only. Any how, the re-transfer order was issued to him only on 24.10.2018.

6. However, in the case of the writ petitioner, he had disobeyed the order though he has been relieved from the old branch to the new branch by relieving order dated 12.06.2018. By no stretch of imagination, the facts and circumstances of this petitioner can be compared with that of Thiru.Ramesh. This petitioner had refused to abide by the valid orders of this respondent and has not joined duty and remaining in unauthorized absence for the period of nine months, posing a great bottleneck to the respondent in providing transport need to common public.

7. The respondents initiated disciplinary action against the writ petitioner for his insubordination to abide by the order and also for remaining in unauthorized absence.

8. May that it be. This Court is of an opinion that the facts and circumstances narrated both by the writ petitioner as well as by the respondent can never be re-adjudicated in a contempt proceedings. The scope of the contempt proceedings are limited and this Court is bound to deal with the contempt petition strictly in accordance with the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act and this Court is bound to see whether the orders passed by this Court has been violated by the respondents or not.

9. This Court passed final orders in W.P.No.15130 of 2018 dated 01.11.2018, which reads as under:

“7. It is not in dispute that the transfer of the petitioners is made on administrative reasons. In the counter affidavit filed, it is indicated that the petitioners have been transferred in the exigency of work, no doubt, subsequently, one of them, who had gone on transfer on the same reasons was also brought back, i.e. on the representation made by him, from the afore said fact, it appears to this Court that the contention advanced by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners since they are engaged in the Union activities of a rival Union, as such, to harass them, they have been transferred, appears to have substance. However, during course of hearing, as it is submitted by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondent, Corporation indicating the fact that, if the petitioners also represents their case, the same shall be considered, this Court, without interfering with the transfer orders, dispose of both the Writ Petitions giving liberty to the petitioners to file representation in this regard within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for cancellation of their transfer and if such representation is made, the same shall be considered as in the similar facts and circumstances, they have considered to re transfer of an employee, who was transferred along with the petitioners and pass necessary orders within two weeks of receipt of the same. It is made clear that, if the petitioners have not joined duty in the new place of posting, the interim order granted by this Court, dated 21.06.2018, by virtue of which, the respondents are restrained from proceeding against the petitioners for their non joining, shall continue to remain so till orders are passed based on such representation of the petitioners. No costs. Consequently, connected Writ Miscellaneous Petitions are closed.”

10. The order unambiguously enumerates that this Court, without interfering with the transfer orders, dispose of both the Writ Petitions giving liberty to the petitioners to file representation in this regard within ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order for cancellation of their transfer and if such representation is made, the same shall be considered as in the similar facts and circumstances, they have considered to re transfer of an employee, who was transferred along with the petitioners and pass necessary orders within two weeks of receipt of the same.

11. Under these circumstances, the counter affidavit filed by the respondent states that the case of the similarly placed person Mr.Ramesh is different and he joined in

Please Login To View The Full Judgment!

the transferred post and made an application for re-transfer. However, the case of the writ petitioner was distinguished as he disobeyed the orders of transfer and remained in unauthorized absence. Thus, the facts cannot be compared. 12. This being the factum, this Court is of an opinion that the respondents had considered the representation submitted by the writ petitioner as directed by this Hon’ble Court in order dated 01.11.2018 in W.P.No.15130 of 2018. 13. Under these circumstances, this Court do not find any infirmity and accordingly, the respondents have not committed any Contempt of Court, warranting an order of punishment. 14. Thus, the Contempt Petition stands dismissed. No costs.
O R