Ram Lochan Mishra and ors. Vs. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) and ors. - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
- constitution of india article 215: [m. karpaga vinayagam, cjm, .y.eqbal & amareshwar sahay, r.k. merathia, narendra nath tiwari, jj] contempt proceedings review powers of high court held, article 215 of the constitution vests the high court with all the powers of court of record including the power to punish for its contempt. this special jurisdiction is inherent in a court of record from the very nature of the court itself. the said special power is not subject to the procedural law either of the criminal procedure code or the contempt of courts act. the high court can deal with the matter summarily and can adopt its own procedure. however, if the high court initiates the proceeding as a court of record, principle of natural justice must be applied and the contemner should be given sufficient opportunity to know the accusation and to defend himself. in the instant case, the contemner was served with the notice to show cause. he was well aware of the accusation. he also admitted his guilt. in view thereof, contention of the contemner lawyer that he was not heard on merit of the contempt application and the impugned judgment of punishing petitioner in contempt of court is violative of principles of natural justice, is not tenable. article 215: contempt proceedings review of conviction held, it is the solemn duty of the bench and bar to maintain and uphold the majesty, authority and dignity of the courts for the sustenance and progress of democracy in our country particularly at the juncture when there are number of instances of outside attempt to disintegrate and destroy the democratic set up of our country. such conduct of a member of the bar brings the authority of the court and the administration of justice into disrespect, erodes and undermine the foundation of the judiciary by shaking faith and confidence of the people in the ability of the courts to deliver free and fair justice, it is a deliberate attempt to insult the high court and denigrate the authority and solemnity and court strongly deprecate such attempt made with biased attitude. such indiscriminate allegations against judges, who are the members of the bench, cannot be a ground for review of the impugned judgment. punishment of prohibiting appearance of contemner/lawyer before high court as well as courts under its jurisdiction is based on his repeated convictions for contempt in the past is not violative of article 19(g) of the constitution. no interference in exercise of review jurisdiction is warranted. - thus clearly this writ petition is barred. 8. thus, the high court itself clearly distinguished the case of the persons who chose to file writ petition directly, like the petitioners, from those who chose to raise industrial dispute and get their claim adjudicated by the tribunal.r.k. merathia, j.i.a. no. 1418 of 20041. this interlocutory application has been filed for amending the writ petition. petitioners want to challenge the press notice dated 22.1.1996, whereby it was notified that due to paucity of fund, the project. work was not in a position to proceed and therefore the daily wages employee were advised to receive the arrears and compensation legally payable to them under the provisions of 25a of the i. d act.the amendment, sought for, is allowed by amending the prayer portion, as prayed.i.a. no. 1418 of 2004 is allowed.c.w. j. no. 2352 of 19951. petitioners have filed this writ petition for their absorption/regularization on class iii and iv posts.2. admittedly, petitioners filed a writ petition for the self same relief being cav.jc no. 4865 of 1988 (r), which was dismissed as withdrawn on 25.8.1988 by passing the following order.after some argument, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission to withdraw this application to pursue internal remedies.the application is, accordingly, permitted to be withdrawn.3. mrs. pal appearing for the petitioners submitted that after withdrawal of the first writ petition, petitioners pursued internal remedy by filing application before the respondents, but, as they did not get relief this second writ petition was filed. she further submitted that a group of 40 employees raised industrial dispute for their appointment, in which award was passed in their favour which was confirmed up to supreme court.-. moreover, by a common press notice dated 22.1.1996 petitioners and the said 40 employees were asked to receive their retrenchment compensation as, per section 25f of the industrial disputes act, thus, the petitioners are similarly situated and are entitled to the same relief which the said group of employees got.4. the case of the respondents in short is that this second writ petition is barred by the principles of res judicata; that the 'ajoy barradge project' was shelved due to paucity of fund; that on 22.12.1993, it was decided to dispense with the daily wagers after complying with section 25f of the industrial disputes act ( i.d, act for short), as their services was no longer required; that such daily wagers were not appointed as per the procedure, and no appointment letters were issued to them.5. the question is whether (i) this second writ petition is barred; (ii) whether petitioners arc similarly situated with the said group of 40 persons and (iii) whether the petitioners are entitled to absorption/regularization?6. as noticed above, for the self same relief, petitioners filed a writ petition. on 26.8.1988, after some argument, it was dismissed as withdrawn, without any liberty to file fresh writ petition. in (1987) 1 scc 5 sargaguja transport services, it was held that a fresh writ petition for same cause of action cannot be filed after withdrawal of earlier writ petition, without permission to institute fresh writ petition. thus clearly this writ petition is barred. moreover, it was filed after about seven years of the withdrawal of earlier writ petition.7. a group of 40 daily wagers raised industrial dispute claiming their absorption/regularization being reference case no. 10 of 1988, on 31.12.1990, award was passed in their favour. the labour court found that the concerned workmen were appointed on different posts under the department between august 1979 to october, 1982 and since then they worked continuously, though on daily wages; and that the work was of permanent nature. the department filed a writ petition being cwjc no. 11753 of 1993 against the said award which was dismissed on 21.5.1995. during the course of hearing, of that writ petition, learned counsel for the department relied on certain judgments and submitted that the labour court could not direct to regularize the workmen who were; irregularly appointed without following the procedure. learned single judge distinguished the said cases saying thatthe present cases arise from an industrial dispute raised by the workmen which has been duly adjudicated within the four corners of that act, by the labour court and the award of the labour court cannot be assailed on the basis of decisions given on a petition under articles 226 and 227 of the constitution.the lpa against the said judgment was dismissed in limine. the department then moved supreme court. on 11.8.1997, the following order was passed:the high court has followed a judgment delivered in cwjc no. 12328/1993. we asked learned counsel whether any special leave petition has been preferred against that judgment. learned counsel sought an adjournment to enable him to verify this. we see no reason why a basic fact such as this should not have been looked into before the special leave petition was filed. we, therefore, decline, the adjournment and dismiss the special leave petition.8. thus, the high court itself clearly distinguished the case of the persons who chose to file writ petition directly, like the petitioners, from those who chose to raise industrial dispute and get their claim adjudicated by the tribunal. only because a common press notice was issued on 22.1.1996, advising the petitioners and the said 40 workmen 10 receive the arrears and compensation as per section 25f of the 1.1). act, the case of petitioners will not become similar to the case of the said 40 workmen.9. petitioner's claim of rcgularization/ubsorplion cannot be allowed. the department decided to dispense with daily wagers, after complying 25f of the i.d, act. their services was no longer required as the project, was shelved due to paucity of fund.10. the present case is fully covered by the ratio of the constitution bench judgment reported in : (2006)iillj722sc secretary, state of karnataka and ors. v. uma devi and ors. it has been held inter alis that the court cannot direct regularization/absorption/ continuance of temporary, contractual, casual, daily-wage or ad hoc employees, appointed/recruited and continued for long in public employment, dchors the constitutional scheme of public employment. it is further held that the orders based on sentiments would result in perpetuating illegalities and in jettisoning of the scheme of public employment adopted by us while adopting constitution. it is further held that by such regularization, undue benefits cannot be given to few persons, at the cost of many waiting for appointment to be made in due course.when an argument was advanced on the ground of discrimination between those similarly situated, it was said that acceptance of such argument would mean that appointments made otherwise than by a regular process of selection would become the order of the day, completely jettisoning the constitutional scheme of appointment. it is further held that the court ought not to impose financial burden on the state by such direction, as such directions may turn counter productive.11. after considering the entire matter, in my view, no relief can be grunted to the petitioners. in the result, this writ petition is dismissed. however, there will be no order as to costs.