JUDGMENT
M. Karpagavinayagam, J.
1. The respondent association filed a Writ Petition, for issuance of a mandamus, forbearing the appellants herein, namely, the officials of Neyveli Lignite Corporation, from selecting unskilled persons to the technical posts, unless they possess NLC Apprenticeship Certificate of the association.
2. Pending Writ Petition, the association filed a petition for interim injunction, to restrain the appellants herein from filling up of the existing vacancies of technical posts, without having a qualified apprenticeship certificate. Accordingly, the same was granted and subsequently made absolute, by an order dated 12.08.2003. Since the interim injunction relates only to the filling up of technical posts, the Corporation continued the process of regularisation in terms of the settlement, with regard to non-technical posts.
3. Aggrieved over the continued process of regularisation by the Corporation, the respondent association filed a Contempt Petition, alleging violation and disobedience of the interim order of injunction. On receipt of notice, appellants pleaded before the learned single Judge that the injunction would relate only to technical posts and, as such, appointment of persons through the process of regularisation to non-technical posts would not amount to contempt.
4. The learned single Judge was not inclined to go into the details of the merits of the contentions of both the parties, however, gave further directions, in order to protect the interest of the respondent association. In other words, even though there was no finding regarding contempt, the learned single Judge issued fresh directions, making adverse remarks against Neyveli Lignite Corporation, thereby considering the merits of the matter. Aggrieved over the same, this appeal has been filed by the appellants.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellants and the respondent and also carefully considered their submissions.
6. Admittedly, the learned single Judge did not go into the question, as to whether any contempt had been committed or not. There is no dispute in the fact, that after the interim order was passed, 266 persons were appointed. The defence of the appellants, namely, contemners is that they have not made appointments to any posts at the technical level and, hence, there is no violation of the interim order. In the light of the said stand taken by the contemners/appellants herein, the learned single Judge would hold that no finding with reference to contempt could be given at that stage, since any finding, to be given in the contempt petition, would affect the merits of the case, at the time of final disposal of the Writ Petition. The relevant observation of the learned single Judge was as follows :
“11. I am inclined to hold that at this stage, it may not be desirable to record any finding as to whether the nature of a particular post would be technical or non-technical and as to whether for such appointment a certificate of Apprenticeship would be necessary as contended by the petitioner, having regard to the position that it would be one of the main issues, which require to be adjudicated in the main Writ Petition. Any finding now to be given in the Contempt Application should not conflict with the conclusions, which may be arrived at in the main Writ Petition. It is necessary that there should be no such inconsistency and in those circumstances, I do not propose to go into the details of the merits of the contentions of both parties.”
7. Having held that no finding would be given with regard to contempt, by deciding whether the persons appointed subsequent to the order to the posts of technical or non-technical, the learned single Judge had chosen to give further directions to see that proper safeguard was made to the interest of the respondent association.
8. It is contended out by the learned counsel for the appellants, that some of the observations made by the learned single Judge are not correct, because they are not based on facts.
9. It is correct for the learned counsel for the appellants to contend so, because, on a perusal of the records, it is clear, that notice was issued in the Contempt Petition only as against the third contemners, who is the third appellant, and not against the other appellants 1 and 2.
10. When that being the case, the observation made by the learned single Judge that counter affidavits had not been filed by the officials, who were parties to the Contempt Petition, but by the Deputy General Manager alone, may not be correct. However, we need not go into the details of the incorrect observation. But, it is clear, the issue of contempt was not decided and, even then, further directions were given to the Corporation, by making adverse remarks against it.
11. The question now before this Court is, whether such directions and observation made by the learned single Judge are proper or not ?
12. While dealing with a similar question, the Supreme Court, in the case of Prithawi Nath Ram v. State of Jharkhand and Ors., , has observed as under :
“8….While dealing with an application for contempt, the court cannot traverse beyond the order, non-compliance of which is alleged. In other words, it cannot say what should not have been done or what should have been done. It cannot traverse beyond the order. It cannot test correctness or otherwise of the order or give additional direction or delete any direction. That would be exercising review jurisdiction while dealing with an application for initiation of contempt proceedings. The same would be impermissible and indefensible….”
13. In the light of the above observation made by the Supreme Court, we are of the view, no more directions could be given to the Corporation, especially when the learned single Judge had chosen not to give any finding, regarding contempt. All the aspects, which have been dealt with by the learned single Judge in the Contempt Petition, can be decided in the main Writ Petition, at the time of final disposal.
14. In view of the above discussion, we think it fit, to set aside the order passed by the learned single Judge, and the same is, accordingly, set aside.
15. Appeal is allowed. No costs. Also, the connected C.M.P. No. 17114 of 2004 is closed.