Compliance with a direction to decide a representation defeats contempt absent willful disobedience.

The complainants filed a civil contempt petition alleging willful disobedience of the order dated 17 April 2023 in W.P. No. 13350 of 2022 (L-RES).

The High Court directed the Managing Director of The Mysore Sugar Company Ltd. to file an affidavit of compliance or appear before it.

In the compliance affidavit, the Managing Director stated that arrears under the Sixth Wage Board had been paid to 64 employees and referred to a statement of the payments.

The Court recorded that the writ order’s direction was to decide the complainants’ representation.

1. Whether the respondents had willfully disobeyed the order dated 17 April 2023 in W.P. No. 13350 of 2022.

2. Whether the compliance shown by the respondents warranted continuation of the contempt proceedings.

The petition invoked Article 215 of the Constitution of India and Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.

The Court applied the principle that contempt requires willful disobedience of the court’s order; where the order has been complied with and willful disobedience is not established, the contempt proceeding may be closed.

The Court treated the operative direction in the writ proceedings as requiring the respondents to decide the complainants’ representation.

Having considered the compliance affidavit, which reported payment of Sixth Wage Board arrears to 64 employees, the Court concluded that the respondents had complied with the writ judgment and that willful disobedience was not made out.

The order does not explain how the reported payments related to the direction to decide the representation. It also records, without elaboration, that the contemnor had “misunderstood the contempt jurisdiction of the executing Court”.

It left the complainants free to pursue any appropriate remedy available under law if dissatisfied with the respondents’ order.