[2025:RJ-JP:49129] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Contempt Petition No. 813/2020 JCTSL Employees Union, Through General Secretary, Chandra Prakash Dhakar Son Of Shri Ramesh Chand Dhakar Aged About 28 Years, Presently Having Registered Address - Opp. Sindhi Camp Bus Stand, Over Ganesh Pan Bhandar, Station Road, Jaipur. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Shri Naveen Jain, Managing Director, Jaipur City Transport Services Ltd., Second Floor, Old Mahila Hotel, Near Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur-302015. 2. Shri Virendra Kumar, Officer On Special Duty, Jaipur City Transport Services Ltd., Second Floor, Old Mahila Hotel, Near Police Headquarter, Lal Kothi, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015. 3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary, Department Of Transport, Government Secretariat, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Sandeep Singh Shekhawat For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sandeep Pathak HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUROOP SINGHI Order 03/12/2025 1. The present writ petition has been filed alleging non- compliance of interim order dated 17.09.2020 which reads as under: “Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the standing orders as prepared by the respondents have not been notified and approved by the Labour Commissioner and, therefore, the respondents cannot invoke the standing orders for terminating the services of the members of the petitioner – JCTSL Employees Union. Learned counsel submits that by invoking such standing orders several employees of the respondents who were substantively appointed have been terminated. [2025:RJ-JP:49129] (2 of 4) [CCP-813/2020] Issue notice, returnable within eight weeks. In the meanwhile, the respondents are restrained from invoking the standing orders till they are duly notified.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite passing of the interim order dated 17.09.2020 by this Court and the same being duly communicated to the respondents, the respondents have proceeded ahead to terminate the services of three of its employees namely Shri Manoj Kumar S/o Shri Mahendra, Shri Tejaram Choudhary S/o Shri Manohar Lal and Shri Santosh Kumar Meena S/o Shri Kalyan Sahay. Learned counsel submits that the said order of termination dated 17.09.2020 is a backdated order and has been passed merely to overcome the interim order dated 17.09.2020 passed by this Court. 3. To buttress his submissions, learned counsel has placed reliance upon a photocopy of a duty chart which bears the date of 18.09.2020 and finds the name of all the three employees and submits that all these employees had worked on 18.09.2020 which confirms that they were not terminated on 17.09.2020 and the termination order is a backdated order. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that the factum of order dated 17.09.2020 was duly communicated by General Secretary of the Union to the respondents along with the certified copy of the order dated 17.09.2020 on 17.09.2020 itself. 5. Learned counsel for respondents has filed his reply tendering unconditional apology and also controverted the fact that the allegation with respect to any tampering being done with the termination order dated 17.09.2020 is misconceived. The termination orders were duly passed on 17.09.2020 itself, prior to the communication of the interim order upon them. Learned [2025:RJ-JP:49129] (3 of 4) [CCP-813/2020] counsel further submits that the duty chart is prepared in advance and further its copy annexed with the reply also bears a note which records that services of all these three employees have been terminated on 17.09.2020. Learned counsel also submits that the duty chart relied upon by the petitioner has not been prepared by any of the Authorities who have been arrayed as respondents in the contempt petition. 6. Learned counsel lastly submits that the allegation with respect to any tampering being done in the termination order is a far fetched allegation and no defiance of the order passed by the learned Court much less any willful or deliberate non-compliance have been made by the respondents. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 8. While, it is true that the interim order was passed on 17.09.2020 and was also duly served in the Office of the respondent on the very same day, however, it is also a fact on record that the termination orders of all the three employees were also issued on the very same day and undisputedly, neither the letter issued by the Union nor the termination order have any mentioning of time thereon so as to make out as to which was issued prior in time. Further, as there is no counter by way of a rejoinder filed by the petitioner, none of the documents annexed therein, more particularly, the duty chart and the notes can be disputed thus, no case of willful or deliberate non-compliance by the respondents is made out. [2025:RJ-JP:49129] (4 of 4) [CCP-813/2020] 9. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chaduranga Kanthraj URS and Another Vs. P. Ravi Kumar and Others, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3681, while considering the issue of willful disobedience has held as under:- “1.10. In order to punish a contemnor, it has to be established that disobedience of the order is ‘wilful’. It means knowingly- intentional, conscious, calculated and deliberate with full knowledge of consequences flowing therefrom. It would exclude casual, accidental, bonafide or unintentional acts or genuine inability and would also not include involuntary or negligent actions. The deliberate conduct of a person means that he knows what he is doing and intends to do the same. It is too well settled that if two interpretations are possible, and if the action is not contumacious, a contempt proceeding would not be maintainable. 1.11. The weapon of contempt will not be used for execution of the decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. The paramount consideration is given to maintain court's dignity and majesty of law. In Sudhir Vasudeva v. George Ravishekeran this Court has observed that a Court exercising jurisdiction under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 must not travel beyond the four corners of the orders in relation to which contempt has been alleged. That the Court hearing a contempt petition ought to restrict the scope of its enquiry to such directions which are explicit in the judgment or orders of which contempt has been alleged.” 10. Thus, in view of the above, I do not find any contempt being made out by the respondents and consequently the same stands dismissed. 11. Notices stand discharged. (ANUROOP SINGHI),J DANISH USMANI /37