IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE S.SIRI JAGAN WEDNESDAY, THE 23RD JUNE 2010 / 2ND ASHADHA 1932 Con.Case(C).No. 696 of 2010(S) ------------------------------ AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT/ORDER IN WPC.17196/2009 Dated 09/10/2009 .................... PETITIONER(S): PETITIONER ------------------------- M/S.K.N.SECURITY & ALLIED SERVICES PVT. LTD.,BUILDING NO.VII/432B,CIVIL STATION, KUNNUMPURAM ROAD, KAKKANAD ERNAKULAM DISTRICT- REPRESENTED BY ITS MANAGING DIRECTOR, COL.(RETD.) SHRI.K.C.K.NAIR, S/O.LATE NARAYANAN,AGED 61, R/AT 'NARAYANEEYAM',40/6 WARD NO.XII, KAMAL VILLA, BY ADV. SRI.K.MOHANAKANNAN SMT.A.R.PRAVITHA RESPONDENT(S): 5TH & 3RD RESPONDENT IN WPC ------------------------------------------ 1. SHRI.P.JAGADEESAN, (AGE AND FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), THE GENERAL MANAGER, TELECOM, BHARATH SANCHAR NIGAM LTD., MALAPPURAM (SSA). 2. SHRI. KULDIP GOYAL, (AGE & FATHER'S NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER), CHAIRMAN & MANAGING DIRECTOR, CORPORATE OFFICE, 301, STATEMENT HOUSE, BHARATHAMBA ROAD, NEW DELHI-1. ADV.C.S.RAMANATHAN, SC THIS CONTEMPT OF COURT CASE (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 23/06/2010, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: S.SIRI JAGAN, J. ================== Contempt Case (C).No. 696 of 2010 ================== Dated this the 23rd day of June, 2010 J U D G M E N T The petitioner alleges non-compliance with Annexure A1 judgment, the operative portion of which reads thus: “The 3rd respondent shall take appropriate steps to revise the amount payable to the petitioner as per Ext. P1 agreement based on the increase in wages and allowances sanctioned by the Director General of Re-settlement by Ext. P2 and take a decision as to the additional amounts payable to the petitioner consequent thereto. This shall be done within two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Additional amounts due to the petitioner shall be paid accordingly without any delay.” The learned counsel for the respondents submits that the exercise has been completed and a cheque has been forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner admits having received the same. But, according to the petitioner, that is not in full settlement and further amounts are due to the petitioner. In the above circumstances, this contempt case is closed without prejudice to the right of the petitioner to challenge the correctness of the amounts now received, appropriately. Sd/- sdk+ S.SIRI JAGAN, JUDGE ///True copy/// P.A. to Judge 2