Facts
The petitioners, comprising eighteen employees (Group ‘C’ and ‘D’) of Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (MTNL), filed a Contempt Petition alleging willful disobedience of the Tribunal’s directions passed in O.A. No. 2803/2018
Source reference: p. 1-5The respondents included the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, the CMD of MTNL, and the Secretary, Department of Pension and Pensioners Welfare
Source reference: p. 5During the proceedings on March 18, 2026, the respondents informed the Tribunal that the High Court of Delhi had stayed the operation of the judgment/order passed in the underlying Original Application (O.A. No. 2803/2018)
Source reference: p. 6, para 1Issues
1. Whether the Contempt Petition can be maintained or continued when the underlying order of the Tribunal has been stayed by the Hon’ble High Court
Source reference: p. 6, para 1-3Law Applied
The Tribunal applied the principle of judicial discipline and the legal effect of a "stay" granted by a superior court.
Source reference: p. 6, para 1-3When an order of a subordinate forum (the Tribunal) is stayed by a superior court (the High Court) under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the operation of that order is suspended.
Source reference: p. 6, para 1-3Consequently, the lower forum cannot proceed with enforcement or contempt proceedings for non-compliance during the subsistence of the stay order
Source reference: p. 6, para 1-3Reasoning
The Tribunal’s reasoning was based entirely on the categorical statement made by the respondents' counsel regarding the stay order issued by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi
Source reference: p. 6, para 1The Member (Judicial) observed that since the subject matter of the contempt—the order in O.A. No. 2803/2018—was currently stayed, the respondents could not be held in contempt at this stage
Source reference: p. 6, para 3The Tribunal acknowledged the petitioners' request for liberty to revive the proceedings or take alternative legal recourse depending on future developments in the High Court
Source reference: p. 6, para 2By closing the petition rather than dismissing it on merits, the Tribunal preserved the petitioners’ right to seek enforcement should the High Court eventually vacate the stay or uphold the Tribunal's original order
Source reference: p. 6, para 3Holding
The Tribunal ordered the closure of the Contempt Petition and discharged the notices issued to the alleged contemnors
It held that the petition cannot proceed in light of the High Court’s stay order but granted the petitioners liberty to revive the petition in accordance with law, if required, at a later stage
Source reference: p. 6, para 3All pending Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) were disposed of, and no costs were awarded
Source reference: p. 6, para 4-5Original Court PDF
VipinvsDR. NEERAJ MITTAL &ORS SECRETARY
Click to open original judgment
Original judgment, available to read, download and summarize on LawLens.in