1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) MONDAY, THE 5TH DAY OF JULY, 2010 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU CONTEMPT PETITION NO.1139 OF 2008 AND SUB APPLICATION NO.14 OF 2009 ************ Ajeema, W/o.Late R.M.Anwar, No.8, Mootai Thottam, 9th Street, Old Washermenpet, Chennai – 600 021. .. Petitioner Vs. 1.Debendranath Sarangi, IAS., Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.Paramasivam Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram Division-II) Vellore.(formerly known as Pattukkottai Azhagiri Transport Corporation) .. Respondents Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to punish the respondents for having disobeyed wantonly and wilfully the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 01/07/2008 and made in W.P.No.2689 of 1999. The above Contempt Petition coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of Mr.C.Manohar, Advocate for the petitioner herein; and of Mr.T.Seenivasan, Additional Government Pleader for the 1st https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 respondent herein; and of Mr.G.Muniratnam, Advocate for the 2nd respondent (Transport Corporation) herein; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of Ajeema, filed in Contempt Petition; and the application and affidavit of Ajeema, filed in Sub Application; the Court made the following order:- This contempt petition is filed by the petitioner, seeking to punish the respondents for the alleged disobedience of the order of this court in W.P.No.2689 of 1999, dated 1.7.2008. In the Sub Application, the petitioner seeks for a direction to the second respondent Transport Corporation to pay a cheque for Rs.1,06,925/- which amount was computed by the Labour Court and which order was upheld by this court. 2.When the matter came up on 25.11.2008, this court admitted the contempt and ordered notice to respondents. 3.The facts and circumstances of the case are as follows: The petitioner is the wife of late R.M.Anwar, who was a driver appointed by the respondent State owned Transport Corporation. After serving the corporation, he went on voluntary retirement with effect from 30.6.1991. Subsequently, claiming his dues, he filed a claim petition in C.P.No.829 of 1994. The Labour Court computed the amount, by an order, dated 26.12.1996. The said order was challenged by the State of Tamil Nadu before this court in https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 the writ petition. This court by an order dated 1.7.2008 confirmed the order of the labour court. In the operative portion of the order, the State was directed to pay the amount to the legal heir, who had come on record as fourth respondent before this court within 12 weeks. Since the said amount was not paid, the fourth respondent in the main writ petition filed the contempt petition. 4.After notice was ordered, on behalf of the respondents, it was informed to this court that there are other legal heirs who are entitled for the benefit due to the death of late Anwar. Therefore, the petitioner was directed to file an affidavit, indicating the other legal heirs, so that they can be put on notice. 5.In the meanwhile, the Transport Corporation came up with a letter, dated 3.12.2008 to the Labour Court, stating that they may be permitted to deposit the entire amount of Rs.1,06,925/- with the labour court to show their bonafide to the compliance of the order of this court. But, at the same time, the dispute between the legal heirs will have to be resolved before monies are handed over exclusively to the petitioner. 6.Since no benefit will accrue on the outcome of the contempt, this court decided to resolve the issue once and for all by making the parties to arrive at an amicable settlement. It was brought to the notice of the court that the petitioner has an elder sister by name Saleema Bi, who https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 was very old. Since parties are Mohammedans, they are entitled to have more than one wife. The said Saleema Bi was the first wife of late Anwar and all her children got married. Therefore, this court directed both petitioner and Saleema Bi to appear before this court. Saleema Bi was served summons. On 17.6.2010, this court directed the petitioner to appear before this court along with the other wife of late Anwar in the Chamber on 25.6.2010. 7.Subsequently, on 25.6.2010 both wives appeared in Chamber. After some deliberations, this court advised them that it is better that both wives will come up with some amicable solution with the consent of their children who became major. For this matter, the matter was adjourned to 5.7.2010. On 5.7.2010, both wives, i.e. the petitioner and Saleema Bi appeared before this court and also filed a memo, which is as follows: "1.Late Mr.K.M.Anwar, when alive married my elder sister Saleema Bi, who gave birth to 2 sons and 1 daughter. After some years he married me as the second wife and I gave birth to one daughter and three sons. After the death of my husband, my elder sister came to me and now we are living together. My elder sister's sons and daughter got married and living separately. My sons and daughters are yet to be married. 2.As my elder sister Saleema Bi, is very old now, 80 years of age and also she being illiterate she needs proper protection and care and so living with me. 3.Both the children of Saleema Bi and my children who are all majors now, have no objection for payment of Rs.1,06,925/- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 5 being the arrears of pension to Ajeema, the petitioner herein. 4.All of us now stand as witness to this agreement and put our signatures hereunder. 5.We all pray that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to order payment of Rs.1,06,925/- to Tmt.Ajeema." The petitioner signed along with the children of Saleema Bi in the memo. The memo was taken on record. 8.It is pursuant to the said memo, Mr.Munirathnam, learned counsel appearing for the second respondent Transport Corporation was directed to reissue the cheque in favour of the petitioner for the entire sum of Rs.1,06,925/- as agreed between the parties. Once the said amount is paid, it is made clear that the order of the labour court is fully satisfied. Therefore, the question of committing any contempt of the order of this court would not arise. The said payment shall be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 9.In view of these developments, it is unnecessary to pursue the contempt. Hence the contempt petition will stand dismissed. The respondents are discharged from contempt. No costs. 10.In the sub application, though the counsel for the petitioner Mr.C.Manohar contended that there are other amounts due to the petitioner, at present, this court is not concerned with the other amounts due and what was confirmed by this court in the writ petition was only the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 6 order passed by the labour court. Even otherwise, it is open to the petitioner to work out her remedy in respect of any other amount due before the appropriate forum. Hence this sub application is closed. The disposal of this application will not disentitle her from pursuing such remedy as opened to her in law. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru M.YUSUF EQBAL, The Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 5th day of July, 2010. SD/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR (OS) //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2010. COURT OFFICER (O.S.) From 25th Day of September 2008 the Registry is issuing certified copies of the orders/judgments/Decrees in this format. https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 7 Cns. CONTEMPT PETITION No.1139/2008 AND SUB APPLICATION NO.14/2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE K.CHANDRU ORDER DATED : 05/07/2010 FOR APPROVAL :29/07/2010 APPROVED ON :29/07/2010 Copy to: 1.The Secretary to Government, Transport Department, Fort St. George, Chennai-600 009. 2.The Managing Director, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation, (Villupuram Division-II) Vellore https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/