THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE GHULAM MOHAMMED and THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.G.SHANKAR CONTEMPT CASE No.694 of 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble Sri Justice Ghulam Mohammed) This Contempt Case is filed alleging wilful disobedience of the order of this Court dated 08.07.2007 in WPMP.No.18650 of 2008 in W.P.No.14438 of 2008. The petitioners herein are the workmen in the fourth respondent-bank. They were terminated by order dated 31.08.2004, against which, they preferred an appeal to the Assistant Commissioner of Labour Labour, Hyderabad (first appellate authority), who, by order dated 29/30.06.2006, directed the fourth respondent-bank to reinstate the workmen with 50% back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits. Subsequently, the fourth respondent-bank approached the Government seeking exemption from proviso (1) of sub-section 3 of Section 48 of the Andhra Pradesh Shops and Establishments Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) of depositing the back wages as ordered by the appellate authority. The Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.613, dated 19.03.2008, granted exemption to the fourth respondent-bank, from proviso (1) of sub-section 3 of Section 48 of the Act, and enabled them to file a second appeal before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Hyderabad (second appellate authority). The fourth respondent-bank approached the second appellate authority seeking stay of the order of the first appellate authority dated 29/30.06.2006 in the light of G.O.Rt.No.613, dated 19.03.2008. By order dated 19.03.2008 in M.P.Nos.1 to 40 of 2008, the second appellate authority admitted the appeal and stayed the order of the first appellate authority directing to reinstate the workmen with 50% back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits. Subsequently, the workmen assailed the very same G.O. before this Court in W.P.No.14438 of 2008, wherein this Court, by order dated 08.07.2008 in WPMP.No.18650 of 2008, suspended G.O.Rt.No.613, dated 19.03.2008. Pursuant thereto, the fourth respondent-bank filed WVMP.No.2755 of 2008 to vacate the order of this Court dated 08.07.2008 in WPMP.No.18650 of 2008. This Court while declining to vacate the order of suspension made it absolute. The Labour Officer, Hyderabad filed Crl.MP.No.4902 of 2007 seeking to recover an amount of Rs.1,00,800/- from the fourth respondent-bank. In his order dated 14.10.2008, the learned XII Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad, directed the fourth respondent-bank to deposit the amount, in default, order of attachment be passed. As against the said order, the fourth respondent-bank preferred SLP and the Supreme Court in SLP (Civil) No.25932 of 2008, dated 10.11.2008, while issuing notice directed that no coercive steps shall be taken against the fourth respondent-bank, in the meantime. The grievance of the workmen is that despite subsistence of the order of suspension passed in 08.07.2008 in WPMP.No.18650 of 2008, the second appellate authority disposed of S.A.No.10 of 2008 on 20.04.2010. Sri V.Mallik, learned Counsel for the petitioner-workmen, would contend that though there was a delay of 400 days in filing the second appeal before the second appellate authority, it entertained the appeal without even ordering notice to the petitioners and stayed the order of the first appellate authority directing to reinstate the workmen with 50% back wages, continuity of service and all attendant benefits. He would contend that when the vires of G.O.Rt.No.613, dated 19.03.2008 was questioned before this Court in W.P.No.14438 of 2008, this Court granted interim suspension and during subsistence of the suspension order, entertaining the second appeal by the second appellate authority is misconceived. He would draw our attention to proviso (1) of sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act to contend that the second appeal shall not be entertained unless the employer deposits the entire amount of back wages as ordered by the appellate authority under sub-section (2) or the amount of compensation ordered as the case may be. He would contend that, as per proviso (1) of sub-section (3) of Section 48 of the Act, the condition of depositing the back wages was not complied with by the fourth respondent-bank, therefore, the Second Appeal is not maintainable. He relied on All Bengal Excise Licensees Association v. Raghabendra Singh[1] to contend that since the respondents therein had violated the injunction order, it was a clear case of contempt and, in the instant case, the second appellate authority proceeded to dispose of the second appeal despite subsistence of interim suspension which would amount to contempt. Learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the second appellate authority (third respondent) submits that on the exemption being granted by the Government, vide G.O.Rt.No.613, dated 19.03.2008, for non-compliance of the condition stipulated under Section 48(3) of the Act, the fourth respondent-bank filed an appeal before the second appellate authority, who admitted the appeal and granted stay of the order of the first appellate authority. Learned Counsel would further contend that since this Court had not stayed the further proceedings of the second appeal and had only suspended G.O.Rt.No.613, dated 19.03.2008, the second appellate authority heard the matter and disposed of the second appeal directing payment of 50% of the last drawn salary of the employee per each completed year of service towards compensation in full and final settlement of account, in addition to the amount already paid to the employees, by the fourth respondent-bank in lieu of relief of reinstatement, continuity of service, attendant benefits and 50% back wages as awarded by the first appellate authority. Learned Counsel would, therefore, contend that as there was no specific direction by this Court for non-disposal of the second appeal, disposing of the second appeal by the second appellate authority i.e. third respondent would not amount to contempt. Sri Meherchand Noori, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent-bank, would contend that the contempt should be between the Court and the alleged contemnor and no one can compel or demand as of right initiation of proceedings for contempt and, therefore, the fourth respondent-bank should not have been arrayed as party respondent. In support of his contention, he relied on Muthu Karuppan v. Parithi Ilamvazhuthi[2]. The point that arises for consideration is whether there is deliberate disobedience of the order of this Court dated 08.07.2007 in WPMP.No.18650 of 2008 in W.P.No.14438 of 2008. We have perused the order of the second appellate authority. The decision relied on by Sri V.Mallik, learned Counsel for the petitioner, on All Bengal Excise Licensees Association (1 supra) is of no relevance to the facts of the present case since the question dealt therein was that despite the order of injunction, auction was conducted by the official respondents and, therefore, it amounted to contempt. But, in the instant case, this Court, on 08.07.2008, had suspended only G.O.Rt.No.613, dated 19.03.2008 granting exemption to the fourth respondent-bank, from proviso (1) of sub-section 3 of Section 48 of the Act, of depositing the back wages as ordered by the first appellate authority. Though the fourth respondent-bank had obtained stay of operation of the order of the first appellate authority dated 29/30.06.2006 on 19.03.2008 in M.P.Nos.1 to 40 of 2008 by the second appellate authority much prior to the order of this Court, neither it was challenged before this Court nor the workmen got the further proceedings of the second appeal stayed. Therefore, the contention of the learned counsel for the workmen that disposal of the second appeal by the second appellate authority during the subsistence of the order of suspension is frivolous. Since the question of contempt does not arise, this Court need not go into the contention of Sri Meherchand Noori, learned Counsel for the fourth respondent- bank. The Contempt Case fails and is, accordingly, closed. GHULAM MOHAMMED,J K.G.SHANKAR,J Dt:16.06.2011 Note:Furnish copy within one week. bo usd [1] 2007(2) Supreme 936 [2] 2011(5) SCC 496