Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court, through Justice Milind N. Jadhav, dismissed a writ petition filed by an educational trust challenging the order of the Mumbai University and College Tribunal, which had held the institution guilty of contempt for failing to reinstate a workshop instructor despite multiple binding judicial directions.
The Court strongly admonished the petitioners, observing that they had “willfully and deliberately defied binding judicial orders”, and reiterated that no relief can be granted to parties acting in contempt of court. The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s directions requiring the trust to reinstate the employee in the Degree College Section, pay 50% of salary arrears, and deposit penalties for non-compliance.
Rejecting the petitioner’s request for a stay of the order, the Court declared:
“In view of the gross facts and circumstances, I am not inclined to grant any stay. The petitioners have persistently flouted lawful directions, and such defiance cannot be condoned.”
Facts
The case originated when an instructor appointed on 4 August 2014 as a Workshop Welder in the petitioners’ engineering institute was terminated on 5 May 2018 for alleged misconduct and unsatisfactory performance.
He challenged his termination before the Mumbai University and College Tribunal, which on 15 March 2019 set aside the dismissal and directed his reinstatement “to the same post with continuity of service and full back wages”, imposing costs of ₹20,000 on the management.
However, despite this order attaining finality (as it was never appealed), the institution delayed compliance, leading the employee to file two separate contempt applications before the Tribunal. The management only partially complied by paying back wages and costs, but repeatedly resisted reinstatement, claiming the instructor was a Polytechnic employee rather than a Degree College staff member.
In the second contempt application, the Tribunal, by order dated 22 June 2022, directed reinstatement in the Engineering College, awarded 50% of salary from 13 July 2019 to 6 April 2022, and imposed a daily penalty of ₹500 for continued default. This order was challenged in the present writ petition.
Issues
- Whether the petitioners’ failure to reinstate the employee constituted willful disobedience of judicial orders.
- Whether the petitioners could now claim that the employee was part of the Polytechnic Section when this defence had never been raised earlier.
- Whether the Tribunal erred in awarding back wages and penalty for the prolonged non-compliance.
Petitioner’s Arguments
The petitioners, represented by counsel, contended that the Tribunal’s findings were erroneous as they had reinstated the employee on 12 July 2019 in compliance with the original order. According to them, the respondent refused to work, declined assigned duties, and remained absent despite repeated letters and emails dated 13, 15, and 16 July 2019 directing him to perform his responsibilities in both Degree and Diploma Sections.
They argued that the employee’s conduct was insubordinate, as he refused to perform assigned industrial visits and second-shift duties. The management also claimed that the employee had initially accepted timings of the Diploma Section, indicating his role there, and that this fact was omitted in earlier pleadings due to oversight.
Further, the petitioners argued that the Tribunal erred in awarding 50% back wages for a period when the employee allegedly refused to work. They asserted that such relief rewarded absenteeism and violated natural justice, especially since the disciplinary issues were not considered in full.
Finally, the petitioners alleged that the employee’s appointment was illegal and in violation of recruitment norms, and thus, he was not entitled to monetary benefits.
Respondent’s Arguments
The respondent’s counsel countered that the petitioner’s narrative was false, inconsistent, and designed to evade compliance. The respondent emphasized that he was appointed as a Workshop Instructor in the Degree Section and that the petitioners themselves had issued certificates dated 6 May 2016 and 9 March 2018 confirming his employment in the Degree College. His salary slips, exam duty orders, and service records consistently showed his role in the Degree Section.
He pointed out that despite the Tribunal’s binding 2019 reinstatement order, the petitioners never challenged it, making it final and executable. Even after tendering an unconditional apology in the first contempt case and promising reinstatement, the management continued to obstruct compliance.
The respondent further argued that the management’s claim about him being a Polytechnic employee was an afterthought, raised only to evade reinstatement. He also alleged that fabricated muster rolls were produced to mislead the court, constituting perjury.
He submitted that due to five years of financial hardship and the petitioner’s deliberate non-compliance, the Tribunal rightly imposed a penalty and ordered partial back wages to compensate for prolonged deprivation of livelihood.
Analysis of the Law
Justice Jadhav underscored that the College Tribunal’s 2019 order attained finality, as it was never appealed. Once final, it bound the petitioners to comply in letter and spirit.
The Court observed that “compliance with judicial orders is not optional” and that educational institutions, like any litigant, are expected to adhere to the rule of law. The management’s attempt to introduce new defences after multiple rounds of litigation was held to be impermissible and mala fide.
Relying on principles of contempt jurisprudence, the Court noted that willful defiance of a lawful direction amounts to gross misconduct, warranting denial of equitable relief. The Court emphasized that undertakings given before judicial authorities are solemn assurances, and their breach strikes at the heart of the justice system.
Precedent Analysis
- Savitri Devi v. District Judge, Gorakhpur (1999) 2 SCC 577 — The Supreme Court held that compliance with judicial orders is mandatory and failure to act upon them constitutes willful disobedience.
- Baradakanta Mishra v. Registrar of Orissa High Court (1974) 1 SCC 374 — Reaffirmed that contempt proceedings ensure the supremacy of law and protect the dignity of courts from deliberate disobedience.
- Sudhir Vasudeva v. M. George Ravishekaran (2014) 3 SCC 373 — Clarified that undertakings given to courts are binding; violation amounts to contempt even if the defaulting party claims misunderstanding.
These cases guided the Court in concluding that the petitioners’ repeated defiance was deliberate and unjustified.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court noted that every judicial order — from the Tribunal’s reinstatement directions in 2019 to subsequent contempt orders in 2019 and 2022 — was adverse to the petitioners, yet none were fully implemented.
Justice Jadhav observed that the petitioners’ undertakings dated 10 October 2022 before the High Court and their non-compliance with the reinstatement order of 2 May 2023 clearly showed bad faith. The Court found that even after being granted leniency, the petitioners persisted in defying orders, instead attempting to misrepresent facts by reclassifying the employee’s position.
The Court termed the Polytechnic employment claim as “a belated and concocted plea”, holding that it could not be raised at this stage when earlier records and certificates confirmed employment in the Degree College.
Ultimately, the Court concluded that the petitioners’ conduct amounted to willful defiance, meriting no equitable consideration.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the Tribunal’s order dated 22 June 2022, confirming reinstatement of the employee in the Degree College Section with continuity of service and consequential benefits.
It directed the petitioners to pay ₹6,95,750, representing 50% salary arrears and penalties, within four weeks, failing which the amount would accrue 12% interest per annum. The previously deposited ₹2,00,000 was ordered to be released to the employee immediately.
“The petitioners have dishonoured undertakings before judicial bodies and have shown complete disregard for the rule of law. Such conduct cannot be tolerated.”
The request for stay pending appeal was explicitly declined.
Implications
- The judgment reinforces that undertakings before courts are binding and their violation attracts consequences.
- Educational institutions are not above the law and must comply with orders from statutory tribunals.
- Deliberate defiance of judicial directions may result in dismissal of petitions and financial penalties.
- The case strengthens jurisprudence protecting employees wrongfully terminated and denied reinstatement despite judicial orders.
