THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.330 OF 2011 DATED 29TH OCTOBER, 2011 BETWEEN Mohd Osman …Petitioner And Sri Sattaiah, Depot Manager, APSRTC, Narayanpet Depot, Mahabubnagar Dist. …Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR CONTEMPT CASE NO.330 OF 2011 O R D E R Writ Petition No.159 of 2006 was allowed in part by order dated 29.11.2010 modifying the Award of the Additional Industrial Tribunal- cum-Labour Court, Hyderabad, in I.D.No.304 of 1999 and directing the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) to pay 50% back wages to the petitioner from 12.01.1996 to 02.04.2002. The petitioner in the said writ petition filed this contempt case alleging that he had not been paid the amounts due consequent to the above order. The Depot Manager, APSRTC, Kalwakurthy Depot, Mahoobnagar District, stated in his counter that pursuant to the order of this Court in the above writ petition, the records were verified and it was found that the petitioner had been removed from service only on 28.09.1996 and that wages were drawn and paid to him for the period 12.01.1996 upto the end of September, 1996. Deducting the said period, 50% of the back wages payable to him from October, 1996 to 02.04.2002 was calculated and a sum of Rs.1,74,774/- was paid to him under cheque dated 20.08.2011. Sri P.Govinda Rajulu, learned counsel for the petitioner, would however contend that the Provident Fund contributions deducted from his salary from January, 1996 upto April, 2002 and the APSRTC’s matching contributions were not paid to the Provident Fund Commissioner and that the same would amount to disobedience to the order of this Court. It is however to be noticed that the order of this Court was passed in the context of the Award of the Labour Court which was under challenge to the extent it denied back wages to the petitioner. The petitioner does not dispute that the order has been complied with by paying him back wages for the subject period. Whether due and payable Provident Fund contributions were made over to the authority would constitute an independent cause of action and cannot be made the subject matter of enquiry in this contempt case. Needless to state, it would be open to the petitioner to avail the appropriate remedy in this regard in accordance with law. This Court therefore finds no disobedience to its order warranting exercise of contempt jurisdiction. The Contempt Case is accordingly dismissed. No costs. ____________________ SANJAY KUMAR, J. 29TH OCTOBER, 2011. PGS/VGSR