Page 1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL  NO.1816 OF 2014

Special Leave Petition (C) NO.23272 OF 2012

SUDHIR VASUDEVA, CHAIRMAN & MD.       ...    APPELLANT (S) ONGC & ORS.

VERSUS

M. GEORGE RAVISHEKARAN & ORS.       ...  RESPONDENT (S)

J U D G M E N T

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2.  Aggrieved by a direction of the Madras High Court in  

exercise of its contempt jurisdiction to create supernumerary  

posts, this appeal has been filed by the respondents in the  

contempt proceeding.   

1

Page 2

3. Shorn off unnecessary details the core facts that would  

need a recital are enumerated hereinbelow.

The respondents in the present appeal were engaged as  

Radio Operators on contract basis in the Oil and Natural Gas  

Corporation  Ltd.  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  

Corporation”),  a  Public  Sector  Undertaking,  inter  alia,  

engaged  in  on-shore  and  off-shore  oil  and  natural  gas  

exploration.  By a notification dated 08.09.1994 issued under  

Section  10(1)  of  the  Contract  Labour  (Regulation  and  

Abolition) Act, 1970 employment of contract labour in various  

works  in  the  Corporation,  including  the  work  of  Radio  

Operators, was prohibited.  A Writ Petition bearing No. 15211  

of 1991 seeking a direction to the Corporation to treat the  

contract  Radio  Operators  at  par  with  the  regular  Marine  

Assistant Radio Operators was pending before the High Court  

at that point of time.  Subsequently, the union representing  

56  number  of  contract  employees  engaged  as  Radio  

Operators instituted another Writ Petition i.e. W.P. No. 1178  

of 1996 seeking the same relief.   

2

Page 3

4. In Air India Statutory Corporation and Others Vs.  

United Labour Union and Others1 this Court took the view  

that upon abolition of contract labour the persons engaged  

on  contract  basis  became  the  employees  of  the  principal  

employer  and  hence  entitled  to  regularization  under  the  

principal  employer.   The said view has been subsequently  

dissented from, though prospectively, in Steel Authority of  

India  Ltd.  &  Ors.  Vs.  National  Union  Waterfront  

Workers & Ors.2.  Following the decision of this Court in Air  

India Statutory Corporation and Others (supra) the writ  

petitions  were  allowed  by  a  learned  Single  Judge  of  the  

Madras High Court by Order dated 29.01.1997.  The Letters  

Patent Appeal filed by the Corporation against the said order  

was dismissed.  The matter was carried to this Court in S.L.P.  

(Civil)  No.20951 of 1997 which was disposed on 12.1.1998  

with the following operative direction.

“Mr.  V.R.  Reddy,  learned  Additional  Solicitor  General  appearing  on  behalf  of  the  petitioner  states that those of the 56 workmen who are found  to  be  qualified  in  terms  of  the  appropriate  regulations, as in force at the relevant time, shall  

1 (1997) 9 SCC 377 2 (2001) 7 SCC 1

3

Page 4

be absorbed as contemplated by the judgment in  Air  India  Statutory Corporation & Ors.  vs.  United  Labour Union & Ors. 1997 (7) SCC 377.  In view of  this  statement  the  SLP  does  not  survive  and  is  disposed of.”

5.    Following the aforesaid order of this Court in the special  

leave  petition  the  respondents  herein  were  absorbed  as  

“Junior  Helpers”  with  effect  from  29.1.1997  by  an  order  

dated 2.4.1998.  Their pay was fixed at the bottom of the  

basic pay of Class IV employees of the Corporation.  It may  

be  noticed,  at  this  stage,  that  the  respondents  being  

employees of the Southern Region of the Corporation were  

posted at Karaikal and Rajamundry stations.   

6. It appears that thereafter a Committee was constituted  

by  the  Ministry  of  Petroleum  &  Natural  Gas  which  

recommended that the Corporation is bound to absorb all the  

contract Radio Operators who had the requisite qualification  

in the post of Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect  

from 8.9.1994 and in the pay scale applicable to the said  

post as on 8.9.1994.  

4

Page 5

7. As the aforesaid recommendation of the Committee was  

not being given effect to, the present respondents instituted  

another proceeding before the High Court i.e. Writ Petition  

No. 21518 of 2000 seeking a direction for their absorption as  

Marine Assistant Radio Operators with effect from 8.9.1994.  

Specifically,  it  must  be  taken  note  of  that  in  the  

aforesaid  writ  proceeding  the  Corporation  had,  inter  alia,  

contended that there was no requirement of Marine Assistant  

Radio  Operators  in  the  Southern  Region  Business  Centre  

(SRBC) or other regions of the Corporation as there were no  

adequate off-shore operations.  It was also contended that on  

account of the upgraded technology available, there is also  

no necessity for the service of a Radio Operator as with the  

advancement of technology the users themselves were in a  

position to operate the system without the assistance of an  

operator.   

8. By order dated 2.8.2006 the writ petition was disposed  

of with the following findings and operative directions:

5

Page 6

"32. Therefore,  considering  the  entire  facts  and  circumstances of the case in the light of the report  of the committee, recommendation made by the  Ministry  of  Petroleum  and  Natural  Gas  and  the  judgment  of  the  Supreme  Court  in  Air  India  Statutory Corporation case, cited supra, I am of the  considered  view  that  the  absorption  of  the  petitioners by the respondent corporation as Junior  Helpers with the pay of Rs.2,282/- old basic bottom  of  Class  IV  cadre  was  not  fair  and  proper  and  certainly  not  in  strict  compliance  of  the  undertaking given by the respondent corporation  before the Supreme Court.  On the other hand, I  am of the considered view that the petitioners are  entitled to be absorbed as Marine Assistant Radio  Operators.

33. In the result,  the writ  petition is allowed as  prayed  for.   The  respondents  are  directed  to  absorb the petitioners as Marine Assistant  Radio  Operators with effect from 8.9.1994 on the basis of  the  abolition  of  contract  labour  and  as  per  the  recommendations dated 4-6-1999 of the Ministry  of  Petroleum  and  Natural  Gas,  Government  of  India, to the first respondent and the approval of  the competent authority as communicated in the  fax  dated  23-9-1999  to  the  third  and  fourth  respondents  with  all  monetary  benefits  and  all  other attendant benefits.  If for any reason, there is  no  cadre  of  Marine  Assistant  Radio  Operator  or  there are no sufficient posts are available in the  cadre  of  Marine  Assistant  Radio  Operators  to  accommodate all the petitioners, the respondents  are  directed  to  give  “pay  protection”  to  the  petitioners and sanction them the scale of pay as  applicable to the Marine Assistant Radio Operators  as recommended by the Ministry of Petroleum and  Natural Gas.”

6

Page 7

9. The aforesaid order dated 2.8.2006 was challenged by  

the Corporation in Writ Appeal No. 1290 of 2006 which was  

dismissed on 19.12.2006 with a direction to the Corporation  

to implement  the order  of the learned Single Judge dated  

2.8.2006  within  a  period  of  four  weeks  from  the  date  of  

receipt of a copy of the order.  Two other writ petitions i.e.  

W.P. Nos. 27500 of 2006 and 27529 of 2006 seeking similar  

relief(s) were also allowed by a separate order of the learned  

Single  Judge  dated  4.4.2007.   The  aforesaid  orders  were  

challenged before this Court in Civil Appeal Nos. 765 of 2008  

and 766-767 of 2008 which were heard alongwith Transfer  

Petition  (C)  No.  889  of  2007  which  was  filed  by  similarly  

situated  persons.  By  order  dated  30.10.2009  all  the  civil  

appeals  and  the  transfer  petition  were  dismissed  by  this  

Court with the following directions :

“We  have  heard  the  learned  senior  counsel  appearing on behalf of the parties.

Learned  counsel  appearing  for  the  parties  have  taken  us  to  various  documents  and  pleadings.  On consideration of the totality of the  facts  and  circumstances  of  this  case,  in  our  opinion,  no  case  has  been  made  out  for  our  interference  under  our  extraordinary  jurisdiction  

7

Page 8

under  Article  136  of  the  Constitution  of  India.  These appeals are accordingly dismissed.   

However, as prayed for by the learned senior  counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, we  direct the appellant Oil & Natural Gas Corporation  to implement the orders within three months.

Transfer Petition (Civil) No. 889 of 2007

In  view  of  our  order  passed  in  the  Civil  Appeals  above-mentioned,  no  orders  are  necessary  in  the  transfer  petition.   The  transfer  petition is disposed of.”

10. Alleging  non-implementation  and  disobedience  of  the  

order dated 2.8.2006 passed in W.P. No. 21518 of 2000 as  

affirmed by order dated 19.12.2006 in Writ Appeal No. 1290  

of 2006 and order dated 30.10.2009 passed in Civil Appeal  

No.765 of 2008, Contempt Petition (C) No. 161 of 2010 was  

filed before the High Court wherein the impugned direction  

for  creation  of  supernumerary  posts  of  Marine  Assistant  

Radio Operator was made by the order dated 19.1.2012.  The  

said order has been affirmed by a Division Bench of the High  

Court by the impugned order dated 11.7.2002.  Aggrieved,  

the present appeal has been filed.

8

Page 9

11. At this stage, it may be necessary to take note of two  

other Contempt Petition Nos. 141 of 2010 and 343 of 2010  

which  had  been  instituted  in  the  High  Court  against  the  

similar  order  dated  4.4.2007  passed  in  Writ  Petition  Nos.  

27500  and  27529  of  2006  which  order  had  also  been  

affirmed by this Court in the connected civil appeals i.e. Civil  

Appeal  Nos.766-767  of  2008,  as  already  noticed.   Regard  

must also be had to Contempt Petition (C) No. 130 of 2010  

filed before this Court by similarly situated persons in respect  

of the order dated 30.10.2009 passed in Transfer Petition (C)  

No. 889 of 2007.   

12. Insofar as Contempt Petition (C) Nos. 141 and 343 of  

2010 are concerned, the same has been dismissed by the  

High Court by its order dated 31.8.2010 holding that no case  

of commission of contempt is made out.  Contempt Petition  

No. 130 of 2010 before this Court was ordered to be closed in  

view of the averments made in an affidavit dated 9.3.2011  

filed on behalf of the Corporation.  Paras 6 and 7 of the said  

affidavit  would require  to be taken note of and are being  

extracted below.

9

Page 10

“6. I say that since there is no vacant post in the  cadre  of  Assistant  Marine  Radio  Operator  in  the  Southern Region (to which region the Respondents  in Civil  Appeal  Nos. 765-767 of 2008 before this  Hon’ble Court  belonged and to which region the  Petitioners  in  the  present  Contempt  Petition  belong) and, no vacancy in the post of Assistant  Marine Radio Operator in the Southern Region has  arisen  after  the  order  and  judgment  dated  2.8.2006  of the Ld. Single Judge in Writ Petition  No.  21518 of  2000,  the  respondents  in  the  said  Appeal could not be accommodated in the post of  Assistant  Marine  Radio  Operator.   Consequently,  until such vacancies arise and, in accordance with  the direction issued by the Ld. Single Judge of the  High  Court  (and  upheld  by  this  Hon’ble  Court),  Respondent No. 1took the following steps :

(i) deployed the respondents in Civil Appeal  No.  765/2008,  who  formed  a  separate  protected  class,  as  Supernumerary  Helpers in the scale of pay applicable to  Assistant  Marine  Radio  Operators,  so  that they are not rendered idle.

(ii) gave  “pay  protection”  to  the  said  respondents  for  the  pay  drawn  by  Assistant  Marine  Radio  Operator  from  the  date  of  their  absorption,  i.e.  08.09.1994.

(iii) paid  them  the  difference  between  the  “protected pay” and the pay previously  drawn by them as  Junior  Helpers  from  the  date  of  their  absorption  on  08.09.1994.

7. I say that even as on date there is no vacancy  in  the  post  of  Assistant  Marine  Radio  Operator  

10

Page 11

(Southern Region).  However, since the Petitioners  herein have sought to be treated at par with the  Respondents  in  Civil  Appeal  No.  765  of  2008,  Respondent No. 1 is prepared to, in order to give a  quietus to the matter extend to the Petitioners the  same treatment and benefits aforesaid extended  to the Respondents in Civil Appeal No. 765 of 2008  with effect from the date of their  absorption i.e.  with effect from 18.2.1998, as has been prayed for  by the Petitioners in the Writ Petition filed by them  in the High Court of Judicature of Andhra Pradesh.”

13. The question that arises in the present appeal, in the  

backdrop of the facts noted above, is whether the appellants  

who are the officers of the Corporation and had complied  

with the alternative direction contained in the order dated  

2.8.2006 passed in Writ Petition (C) No. 21518 of 2000 would  

still be liable for commission of contempt and the only way in  

which the appellants can purge themselves of the contempt  

allegedly committed is by creation of supernumerary posts of  

Marine Assistant Radio Operators.  An answer to the above  

question centres around the contours of the power of the  

Court while exercising its contempt jurisdiction.

11

Page 12

14. We  have  heard  Shri  Goolam  E.  Vahanvati,  learned  

Attorney  General  for  the  appellants  and  Shri  P.P.  Rao,  

learned senior counsel for the respondents.

15. The  learned  Attorney  General  has  urged  that  the  

question of the very necessity of having/continuing the posts  

of Marine Assistant Radio Operators in the Corporation was a  

live  issue  in  Writ  Petition  No.  21518  of  2000  as  the  

Corporation had contended that the work requirement of the  

Corporation did not justify the continuation of the post in the  

cadre of Marine Assistant Radio Operators, particularly, in the  

SRCB where  the  Corporation was not  engaged in  any off-

shore operation.  It  is urged that in the light of the stand  

taken by the Corporation, the option/alternative direction of  

granting parity of pay to the respondents was issued.  It is  

not in dispute that  the Corporation had complied with the  

said  direction.   In  a  situation  where  the  operational  

requirements of the Corporation did not justify the retention  

of the posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operators any further,  

its officers cannot be faulted for not creating supernumerary  

posts  of  Marine  Assistant  Radio  Operators  and  instead  

12

Page 13

creating  posts  of  Junior  Helpers  to  accommodate  the  

respondents and thereafter giving them protection/parity of  

pay in terms of the option granted  by  the  High Court.   The  

learned Attorney  has further submitted that there being no  

direction  for  creation  of  posts  of  Marine  Assistant  Radio  

Operators  in  the  order  dated  2.8.2006 it  was  beyond the  

power of the learned Judge, hearing the Contempt Petition,  

to issue such a direction.  The said error, being apparent,  

ought to have been corrected in the appeal filed before the  

High Court. The order of the Division Bench dated 11.7.2012  

impugned  in  the  present  appeal  is,  therefore,  open  to  

interference in the present appeal.

14. On the other hand Shri P.P. Rao, learned senior counsel  

appearing  for  the  respondents  has  contended  that  an  

obligation to create supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant  

Radio Operator is mandated by the very terms of the Order  

dated 02.08.2006 passed in Writ Petition No. 21518 of 2000.  

Shri Rao has contended that when supernumerary posts of  

Junior Helpers have been created and parity of pay with the  

higher post has been granted it is difficult to conceive why  

13

Page 14

supernumerary  posts  of  Marine  Assistant  Radio  Operator  

were not created in order to fully comply with the Order of  

the High Court.  It is also pointed out that it is evident from  

the  provisions  of  the  relevant  Regulations  governing  the  

service conditions of the respondents i.e. Oil and Natural Gas  

Corporation  Ltd.  i.e.  Modified  Recruitment  and  Promotion  

Regulations, 1980, that had the respondents been absorbed  

as Marine Assistant Radio Operators they would have earned  

promotions  under  the  Regulations  which  avenues  stand  

closed due to their absorption in the post of Junior Helper.  

Shri Rao has also referred to the correspondence exchanged  

between the Corporation and the Ministry of Petroleum and  

Natural  Gas,  Government  of  India,  which  is  available  on  

record, to show that there existed/exists a cadre of Marine  

Assistant  Radio  Operator  and  the  strength  of  the  cadre  

depends  on  the  necessity  of  the  operations  of  the  

Corporation.  The cadre strength is flexible depending on the  

job  requirement,  it  is  urged.   Shri  Rao,  therefore,  has  

contended  that  the  action  taken  by  the  appellants  in  

purported compliance of the Court’s Order dated 02.08.2006  

14

Page 15

would  still  make  them  liable  for  contempt  which  can  be  

purged only by creation of posts of Marine Assistant Radio  

Operator, as directed by the High Court.  

15. The power  vested  in  the  High  Courts  as  well  as  this  

Court  to  punish for  contempt  is  a  special  and rare  power  

available  both  under  the  Constitution  as  well  as  the  

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.  It is a drastic power which, if  

misdirected,  could  even  curb  the  liberty  of  the  individual  

charged with commission of contempt.  The very nature of  

the power casts a sacred duty in the Courts to exercise the  

same with  the  greatest  of  care  and caution.   This  is  also  

necessary  as,  more  often  than  not,  adjudication  of  a  

contempt plea involves a process of self determination of the  

sweep, meaning and effect of the order in respect of which  

disobedience is alleged.  Courts must not, therefore, travel  

beyond the four corners of the order which is alleged to have  

been flouted or enter into questions that have not been dealt  

with  or  decided in  the  judgment  or  the  order  violation of  

which is alleged.  Only such directions which are explicit in a  

judgment  or  order  or  are  plainly  self  evident  ought  to  be  

15

Page 16

taken  into  account  for  the  purpose of  consideration as  to  

whether there has been any disobedience or willful violation  

of the same.  Decided issues cannot be reopened; nor the  

plea of equities can be considered.  Courts must also ensure  

that while considering a contempt plea the power available  

to the Court in other corrective jurisdictions like review or  

appeal  is  not  trenched  upon.   No  order  or  direction  

supplemental to what has been already expressed should be  

issued  by  the  Court  while  exercising  jurisdiction  in  the  

domain  of  the  contempt  law;  such  an  exercise  is  more  

appropriate  in  other  jurisdictions  vested  in  the  Court,  as  

noticed above.  The above principles would appear to be the  

cumulative  outcome  of  the  precedents  cited  at  the  bar,  

namely,  Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another vs. Tarak  

Nath Ganguly and Others3, V.M.Manohar Prasad vs. N.  

Ratnam  Raju  and  Another4, Bihar  Finance  Service  

House  Construction  Cooperative  Society  Ltd.  vs.   

3 (2002) 5 SCC 352 4 (2004) 13 SCC 610

16

Page 17

Gautam Goswami and Others5  and Union of India and  

Others vs. Subedar Devassy PV6.   

16. Applying the above settled principles to the case before  

us, it is clear that the direction of the High Court for creation  

of supernumerary posts of Marine Assistant Radio Operator  

cannot be countenanced.  Not only the Courts must act with  

utmost restraint before compelling the executive to create  

additional posts, the impugned direction virtually amounts to  

supplementing the directions contained in the order of the  

High Court dated 02.8.2006.  The alterative direction i.e. to  

grant parity of pay could very well have been occasioned by  

the  stand  taken  by  the  Corporation  with  regard  to  the  

necessity of keeping in existence the cadre itself in view of  

the  operational  needs  of  the  Corporation.   If  despite  the  

specific  stand taken by the Corporation in  this  regard the  

High Court was of the view that the respondents should be  

absorbed  as  Marine  Assistant  Radio  Operator  nothing  

prevented the High Court from issuing a specific direction to  

create  supernumerary  posts  of  Marine  Assistant  Radio  5 (2008) 5 SCC 339 6 (2006) 1 SCC 613

17

Page 18

Operator.   The  same  was  not  done.   If  that  be  so,  the  

direction  to  create  supernumerary  posts  at  the  stage  of  

exercise of the contempt jurisdiction has to be understood to  

be an addition to the initial order passed in the Writ Petition.  

The argument that such a direction is implicit in the order  

dated 02.08.2006 is self defeating.  Neither, is such a course  

of action open to balance the equities, i.e. not to foreclose  

the promotional avenues of the petitioners, as vehemently  

urged by Shri Rao.  The issue is one of jurisdiction and not of  

justification.  Whether the direction issued would be justified  

by way of review or in exercise of any other jurisdiction is an  

aspect  that  does  not  concern  us  in  the  present  case.  Of  

relevance is the fact that an alternative direction had been  

issued by the High Court by its order dated 02.08.2006 and  

the appellants, as officers of the Corporation, have complied  

with the same.  They cannot be, therefore,  understood to  

have acted in willful  disobedience of the said order of the  

Court.   All that was required in terms of the second direction  

having been complied with by the appellants, we are of the  

view that  the  order  dated  02.08.2006 passed  in  W.P.  No.  

18

Page 19

21518 of 2000 stands duly implemented. Consequently, we  

set aside the Order dated 19.01.2012 passed in Contempt  

Petition  No.  161  of  2010,  as  well  as  the  impugned  order  

dated 11.07.2012 passed in Contempt Appeal No.2 of 2012  

and allow the present appeal.    

...…………………………CJI. [P. SATHASIVAM]

.........………………………J. [RANJAN GOGOI]

…..........……………………J. [SHIVA KIRTI SINGH]

NEW DELHI, FEBRUARY 4, 2014.

19