HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.975 of 2010 Dated: 09-08-2010 Between: M. Gangadhar & others. … Petitioners And C. Naga Raja Rao, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. … Respondent HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.975 of 2010 ORDER: This contempt case is filed, alleging that the respondent has violated the directions issued by this Court in the order, dated 20th of April 2010, passed in W.P.M.P.No.8326 of 2010 in W.P.No.6473 of 2009. The above writ petition is filed by the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, against the award of the Labour Court in a batch of cases. The Labour Court, by the order impugned in the writ petition, directed reinstatement of workmen and to pay wages. The said order is questioned in the writ petition, by the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool. In the application filed by the workmen in W.P.M.P.No.8326 of 2010, when it is stated that the workmen are already reinstated and they are working, this Court directed that due wages payable to them, shall be paid from the date of reinstatement. In this contempt case, the allegation of petitioners is that inspite of such a direction from this Court, the respondent- Corporation is not paying the wages. A detailed counter affidavit is filed by the respondent, denying the various allegations made by the petitioners. It is stated in the counter that as the petitioners were engaged by a Contractor, the Corporation is paying wages to them through the contract agencies under the name of ‘Sri Arunodaya Schedule Kulala Labour Society, Kurnool’. It is submitted that as the petitioners were engaged through the Contractor, when an offer is made to pay wages through the said contractor, some of the petitioners are not receiving the same. It is submitted that even among the petitioners, some have received the amounts that are being paid through the contractor. In view of pendency of the writ petition, whether the petitioners are to be treated as workmen directly under the Municipal Corporation, Kurnool, or not, is a matter to be examined in the writ petition, in view of the plea raised by the Corporation. As much as it is stated that there is an offer to pay wages to the petitioners through the Contractor by following the earlier practice, it cannot be said that there is wilful and deliberate violation of the orders of this Court by the respondent-Corporation, so as to proceed against them under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. It is needless to observe that mere receipt of wages through the Contractor also cannot come in the way of petitioners to agitate their claim in the writ petition, which is to be adjudicated finally. It is further made clear that if the wages are not paid as notified, it is open for the workmen to move the appropriate forum. Subject to the above observations, the contempt case is closed. No order as to costs. ______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J 9th August 2010 ajr