In a contempt petition filed against union leaders for violating an interim injunction restraining an illegal strike, the High Court examined their conduct and unlimited apology before deciding on punishment.
Contempt petition stood closed; unconditional apology accepted; reserved liberty to initiate action in future.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Cont.P.No.1026 of 2020
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 21.04.2021
CORAM
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M. SUBRAMANIAM
Contempt Petition No.1026 of 2020
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited, Rep., by its General Manager-HR(South), 1, Ranganathan Gardens, Off: 11th Main Road, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040.
.. Petitioner
-vs-
1.Mr.P.S.Janardhanan, The General Secretary, Petroleum Employees Union, 1, Ranganathan Gardens, Anna Nagar (West), Chennai-600 040.
2.Mr.M.Sivakumar, The General Secretary, Petroleum Workers Union, C/o.P.B.No.1212 & 1213, Anna Nagar, Chennai-600 040. .. Respondents
Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 to punish the respondents for the wilful disobedience of this Court's Order dated 25.11.2019 in W.M.P.No.33351 of 2019 in W.P.No.32919 of 2019.
For Petitioner : Mr.Anand Gopalan for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co.
For Respondents : Mr.Balan Haridas
Page 1 of 4
Cont.P.No.1026 of 2020
ORDER
This contempt petition is filed to punish the respondents for their wilful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 25.11.2019 in W.M.P.No.33351 of 2019 in W.P.No.32919 of 2019.
2.This Court granted an order of interim injunction restraining the respondents herein from resorting to an illegal strike from 6AM on 28.11.2019 to 6AM on 29.11.2019 pursuant to their strike notice dated 11.11.2019.
3.The learned counsel for the petitioner made a submission that the respondents intentionally violated the orders of this Court, after communication of the interim order passed by this Court. Thus, they are liable to be punished.
4.The first respondent is Mr.P.S.Janardhanan, General Secretary of Petroleum Employees Union and the second respondent is Mr.M.Sivakumar, General Secretary of Petroleum Workers Union. Admittedly, the respondents are the external Union Leaders and they are expected to lead the employees in a lawful manner and by following the regulations and the Conduct Rules as applicable. The respondents, being the external Leaders of the Union, are duty bound to function in a manner
prescribed and lead the employees for their welfare and for effective https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Page 2 of 4
Cont.P.No.1026 of 2020
functioning of the administration. Any misguidance or otherwise by such leaders would certainly affect the integrity of the institution and further result in deterioration of the functioning of any institution. Thus, these Leaders of the Union are bound to guide the employees properly for their welfare and in order to redress their grievances in the manner prescribed under law.
5.It is to emphasis that any misguidance by such leaders of the Union will affect the development of industries in general and therefore, they are expected to be performing their functioning in a lawful manner.
6.It is brought to the notice of this Court that in violation of the orders passed by this Court, a strike was proceeded at the instances of the respondents. However, the respondents individually filed counter affidavit stating that they have no intention to violate the orders of this Court and offered unconditional apology. The Courts are repeatedly holding that mechanical way of filing counter affidavit and seeking unconditional apology cannot be accepted at all times. Violating the orders and thereafter filing counter affidavit seeking unconditional apology is insufficient to form an opinion. The intention is to be identified with reference to certain factual inference to be drawn considering the conduct of the parties and the manner
in which the orders are violated. Thus, this Court is of the considered https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/
Page 3 of 4
Cont.P.No.1026 of 2020
opinion that mechanical approach in contempt petition is undesirable and
the facts and circumstances are to be considered on case to case bases.
7.Considering the fact that the issues are resolved and the petitioner -
Corporation is functioning peacefully and also considering the COVID-19 pandemic situation, this Court is inclined to accept the unconditional apology offered by the respondents and they should not resort to such violation or illegality in future and in such an event, the petitioner is at liberty to initiate appropriate action.
8.With the above findings, this contempt petition stands closed. No
costs.
SD/ASSISTANT REGISTRAR(COMM.CASES) abr
//Certified to be true copy//
Dated at Madras this the day of 2021.
COURT OFFICER(O.S.)
from 25th day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing Certified copies of the Orders/Judgments/Decrees in this format.
GS/07/07/2021
Page 4 of 4
2 issues framed by the court
Whether respondents intended to violate the interim order by proceeding with the strike.
Whether an unconditional apology for violating court orders suffices to absolve contempt liability.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Bharat Petroleum Corporation Limited
Mr.P.S.Janardhanan
Mr.M.Sivakumar
S.M. Subramaniam
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
