Chief Justice of India B. R. Gavai, Justice Augustine George Masih, Supreme Court
Element Of Mens Rea For Civil Contempt Can’t Be Inferred Merely From Factum Of Delay To Comply With Court Order: Supreme Court
|The Contempt Petitions before the Supreme Court were preferred alleging non-compliance with the earlier directions issued by the Court.
The Supreme Court has asked a Bank to pay Rs 3 lakh to the widow or the legal representatives of the deceased employee whose retirement dues remained undisbursed for over a decade. The Apex Court also held that the element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay
The Contempt Petitions before the Apex Court were preferred alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by the Court while dismissing the Civil Appeals whereby the respondent Bank was directed to release the outstanding dues payable to the Petitioner within a period of three months as ordered by the High Court.
The Division Bench of Chief Justice Of India B. R. Gavai and Justice Augustine George Masih stated, “The explanation tendered refers to administrative hurdles post-merger and retrieval of records dating back over three decades. While such circumstances cannot justify laxity in complying with orders of this Court, the element of mens rea, essential for sustaining a charge of civil contempt, cannot be inferred merely from the factum of delay.”
Factual Background
The Petitioner was working as the Manager with the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. He was dismissed from service on the grounds of certain irregularities in the sanctioning of loans, overdrafts, cheques discounting, and delay in reporting. The dismissal was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour and the Petitioner was reinstated. Challenge to this decision was made before the Madras High Court by the Bank and this led to the remand of the matter to the Labour Commissioner for fresh decision. The Petitioner came to be reinstated. This was again challenged before the High Court, where the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was upheld. However, the back wages were limited to 60%.
The Apex Court then dismissed the Bank’s appeal and held that the outstanding amount be paid within a period of three months. The direction having not been complied with, the Petitioner submitted his representation not only claiming the back wages but also the pension, pensionary benefits and the provident funds etc. The said representation was rejected. Despite various representations having been submitted with no result, the present contempt petitions came to be preferred by the Petitioner.During the pendency of the contempt petitions, the Petitioner expired and the legal representatives of the deceased Petitioner were brought on record.
Reasoning
On a perusal of the facts of the case, the Bench noted that the amount was not paid within the period of three months. The letters annexed to the contempt petitions showed that the payments commenced in 2019, well beyond the timeline fixed by the Apex Court.
Reference was made to the judgment in Ashok Paper Kamgar Union v. Dharam Godha and Others (2003), wherein it has been held that contempt jurisdiction is intended to uphold the majesty of law and not to settle personal grievances. As pr the Bench, although the Bank did not effect payment within the time permitted by the Court, the material placed on record did not demonstrate that the delay in compliance was borne out of any wilful or contumacious intent.“Contempt jurisdiction is not a forum for asserting new claims or seeking substantive reliefs which were neither raised nor granted earlier”, it asserted
Referring to the judgment in Jhareswar Prasad Paul and Another v. Tarak Nath Ganguly and Others (2002), wherein it has been observed that contempt proceedings cannot be used to circumvent proper adjudication mechanisms, the Bench held that the prayer for pension couldn’t be entertained at the present stage.
The Bench further noticed that the Petitioner, who was dismissed in 1985 and secured favourable orders as early as 2004, attained the age of superannuation in or around 2006. The retirement dues lawfully accruing to him, however, remained undisbursed for over a decade. In light of the prolonged non-disbursal of funds, despite successive directions at various stages of the litigation, and the fact that litigation remained pending since the 1980s, the Bench directed the respondent Bank to pay Rs 3 lakh to the widow of the deceased and, in her absence, to the other legal representatives within eight weeks.
Cause Title: A.K. Jayaprakash (Dead) Through Lrs v. S.S. Mallikarjuna Rao (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 1003)