SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- A.P. Mishra and Doraiswamy Raju, JJ.

Contempt Petition (C) No. 262 of 2000 in CA No. 5642 of 1994. D/d. 30.10.2000.

Court Liquidator Employees Association - Applicants

Versus

P.G. Mankad - Contemnor

Contempt of Courts Act, 1971, Section 2 (b) - Direction - Non-Compliance - Contempt petition - Maintainability of - In spite of Supreme Court's order scheme not framed within stipulated period - Contempt petition filed - Supreme Court clearly observed that in case respondent failed to frame such scheme impugned order of High Court will stand confirmed - Hence proper remedy for applicants is to approach High Court rather than initiating contempt petition - Contempt petition dismissed.

[Para 4]

ORDER

A.P. Mishra, J. - Heard learned counsel for the applicants.

2. We find on the facts and circumstances of the case that no contempt is made out.

3. This Court while disposing of the petition observed:

'In other words, we stay the operation of the judgment of the High Courts under appeal and the order in Writ Petition (C) No. 473 of 1988 for a period of six months to enable the appellants to frame the scheme as suggested above and to give effect to it, failing which the judgments under appeal and the order in WP (C) No. 473 of 1988 will stand confirmed.'

4. In the present case the grievance of the applicant is that in spite of the observation of this Court the scheme has not been framed within the stipulated period nor has absorption taken place. But looking to the aforesaid quoted portion this Court clearly observed that in case they fail to frame such scheme the impugned High Court order will stand confirmed. Accordingly, the proper remedy for the applicants is to approach the High Court rather than initiating contempt of this Court.

5. With the aforesaid observation the contempt petition is dismissed.

Contempt petition dismissed.