THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO CONTEMPT CASE No. 1134 OF 2010 O R D E R : This contempt of Court action is initiated by the petitioner on the premise that the interim order passed by this Court in W.P.M.P.No. 8322 of 2009 in Writ Petition No. 6379 of 2009, on 23.09.2009 has been willfully and deliberately violated by the 3rd respondent. The direction issued by this Court to the 3rd respondent on 23.09.2009 is to release the terminal benefits in favour of the petitioner within a period of six months, pending further consideration of the Writ Petition. The whole dispute centers around the fact whether the 3rd respondent has paid the petitioner the terminal benefits payable to him or not. Learned counsel for the 3rd respondent Sri Deepak Misra, submits that so far as the provident fund contributions that are liable to be made by the 3rd respondent are concerned, they have already been paid up to the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization and he has also produced photo copies of the receipts passed on by the Employees’ Provident Fund Organization in receipt of such contributions from the 3rd respondent. It is therefore, for the petitioner to work out his remedies for withdrawing the said amounts from the EPF Organization. There was some area of dispute with regard to the actual payment of gratuity amount. It is stated in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit by the 3rd respondent that gratuity amount has already been paid and from out of that amount, the petitioner has himself deposited a sum of Rs.1 lac and he has also produced a photo copy of the said fixed deposit receipt. This statement of fact has been stoutly disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner by pointing out that what has been deposited by the petitioner is from out of his personal savings and he has not received gratuity amount from the 3rd respondent at all. As to whether the 3rd respondent has actually paid the gratuity amount or not, has now become the bone of contention. There is an averment made by the 3rd respondent that he has paid, while the petitioner disputes the same. Therefore, it is appropriate that the petitioner should work out the remedy available to him under the Payment of Gratuity Act, 1972 so that the fact situation can be determined. The conduct of the 3rd respondent does not appear to be one of willful or wanton or deliberate disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. I therefore, do not consider that this is an appropriate case where further action should be initiated against the 3rd respondent, in this contempt of Court action. Hence, the Contempt Case is dismissed, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out the remedies available to him under law. No costs. ---------------------------------------------- (NOOTY RAMAMOHANA RAO, J) 17th November 2011 ksld