@JUDGMENTTAG-ORDER
D.V. Shylendra Kumar, J.@mdashThis contempt petition is filed by the petitioner in W.P. No. 7749/2002 who had questioned the order dated 13.12.2001 passed by the Management, the employer M/s. HMT Limited, accepting the request of the complainant seeking voluntary retirement from her employment as a junior officer, (Sales) in HMT Ltd., CRD Bangalore, It appears the complainant had later become wise and had sought to withdraw her request. The management having acted upon the earlier request, the order was challenged before this Court in a writ petition. The writ petition was ultimately disposed of passing the following order:
I. Writ petition is allowed.
II. The impugned orders passed by the respondents dated 13.12.2001 and 21.01.2002 are hereby quashed.
III. The respondents are directed to reinstate the petitioner into service and to pay all the consequential benefits that she is entitled to in accordance with law.
IV. In the respondents have paid any amounts to the petitioner in terms of voluntary retirement scheme, the respondents are at liberty to adjust the same towards backwages, current, wages and future wages payable to the petitioner.
V. Ordered accordingly with no order as to costs.
The management though had carried the matter by way of an appeal before the Division Bench in W.A. No. 633/2006, in terms of the judgment dated 02.06.2011, the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the appeal and the order of the learned single Judge was sustained. 2. It is thereafter the present contempt, petition is filed by the complainant stating that the respondents/accused have net given full effect to the order and directions issued by the learned Single Judge. During the pendency of the writ appeal. Division Bench had directed reinstatement of the complainant and it had been done by the employer with effect from 27.01.2007. In the wake of these developments, there is still grievance on the part of the complainant to the effect that certain benefits such as leave encashment and retrospective promotions have not been properly extended to her.3. Counter has been filed by the first accused. According to the first accused whatever benefits the complainant was entitled to as per law has been extended to her by the management/accused and there is no cause of action for initiating contempt petition against them and therefore prayed for dropping the proceedings.
4. We have heard Sri. Vishnu D. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the complainant and Sri. B.C. Prabhakar, learned counsel appearing for the accused persons.
5. Irrespective of the developments and even the first respondent/accused having filed the counter to the effect that on their part they have complied with the directions that were issued by the learned Single Judge of this Court, we are disinclined to exercise our contempt jurisdiction in matters of such nature where in the first instance, the direction issued is not precise, no amount is quantified, no specific performance is indicated in the order/direction. We are very loath to initiate contempt proceedings in such a case of uncertainty and indefiniteness. Where precise violation cannot be identified or fixed on any accused persons, we cannot exercise our contempt jurisdiction. Until and unless complainants are able to point out the precise violation, precise inaction, precise contravention, exercising contempt jurisdiction in such matters is not desirable or proper as contempt jurisdiction is a very solemn jurisdiction meant to protect the efficacy of court orders. It cannot be exercised in a casual or routine manner which can only belittle or bring down the efficacy of this jurisdiction as we are seeing the number of contempt proceedings are coming up before this Court in respect of orders of this Court which is not a very healthy development more so in the context of the regard and respect organ of the state should have towards the other and the orders of this Court should be diligently and with sincerity implemented by the executive part of the state. For this desirable result to be achieved even the orders of this court should be precise and cannot be one of any ambiguity or leaving any scope for doubt. In the wake of the present developments in this case, we do not propose to proceed further in this contempt petition and it is accordingly dismissed.
