Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to adjudicate the correctness or merits of orders passed in compliance.

The petitioner filed a Contempt Petition (CP) alleging willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s order dated May 21, 2025, in O.A. No. 1918/2025

The original order directed the respondents to consider the petitioner's representation dated May 1, 2025, and dispose of it via a reasoned and speaking order within six weeks

In purported compliance, the respondents passed an order dated January 27, 2026

The petitioner challenged this compliance, asserting through an affidavit that the order was passed by the Director General of the ESIC, who the petitioner claimed was not the competent authority to decide on the subject matter

1. Whether the merits or the correctness of a speaking order passed in compliance with a court direction can be adjudicated within the limited scope of contempt proceedings

2. Whether the passing of an order by an allegedly incompetent authority, following a judicial direction to decide a representation, constitutes "willful disobedience" under the Contempt of Courts Act

The Tribunal primarily applied the precedent established by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in J.S. Parihar v. Ganpat Duggar and others (1996) 6 SCC 291

The principle dictates that once an authority passes an order based on court directions, a fresh cause of action arises for the aggrieved party to seek judicial review in an appropriate forum

Contempt jurisdiction cannot be used to test the correctness or legality of such a compliance order, as such an exercise would exceed the scope of Section 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act

The Tribunal noted that the respondents had technically complied with the direction to pass a reasoned order

Although the petitioner disputed the competence of the signatory (Director General, ESIC), the Tribunal reasoned that according to the J.S. Parihar doctrine, the correctness of the compliance order—whether it is right, wrong, or passed by the appropriate authority—cannot be reviewed during contempt proceedings

The court held that the act of passing the order satisfied the judicial direction, and any subsequent grievances regarding its legal validity must be addressed through a fresh original application rather than a contempt petition

It held that the issues raised regarding the competence of the authority who passed the compliance order did not amount to willful violation of the Tribunal's directions

The petitioner was granted liberty to agitate surviving grievances through a fresh legal challenge in accordance with the law