1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS (CONTEMPT JURISDICTION) MONDAY, THE 5th DAY OF OCTOBER, 2009 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN CONTEMPT PETITION No.701 of 2006 ************ Devaraj, C/o.T.R.Ramnath, District Secretary, A.I.T.U.C. 153, Thiruvanamalai Road, Gingee 604 202. ... Petitioner Vs Rev.Paul Rajanandham, Secretary, CSI Vellore Diocese, Vellore District, Representing the Management of C.S.I.Jothy Nilayam Hospital, Muttathur 605 202. ... Respondent Contempt Petition praying that this Court be pleased to punish the respondent for having committed Contempt of Court for wilful disobedience of the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 02/12/2005 and made in W.P.No.15976 of 2005. The above Contempt Petition coming on this day before this Court for hearing in the presence of Mr.K.Vasudevan, Advocate for the petitioner herein; and of Mr.P.John for M/s.T.S.Gopalan & Co., Advocate for the respondent herein; and upon reading the petition and affidavit of M.Devaraj, filed herein; and common counter affidavit of Rev.A.Rajavelu, filed herein; the Court made the following order:- https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 2 This contempt petition has been filed by the petitioner to punish the respondent for having committed contempt of Court by wilfully disobeying the order, dated 2.12.2005, passed by this Court, in W.P.No.15976 of 2005. 2. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that by an order, dated 2.12.2005, made in W.P.No.15976 of 2005, this Court had set aside the ex-parte award of the labour Court, dated 11.6.2004, made in I.D.No.126 of 2003 and the matter was remitted back for a fresh trial before the said labour Court. However, while passing the said order, the learned Judge had directed as follows: "The Management shall pay the second respondent commencing from the month of November, 2005 onwards, the last wages drawn by him till the disposal of the remitted proceedings; payment for the month of November, 2005 shall be made to the workman on or before 12th December 2005 and likewise for the following months; the labour Court is directed to take up the I.D. for disposal in accordance with law and complete it, in any event, not later than 30.4.2006. It is made clear that if the disposal of the I.D. is delayed due to any unreasonable attitude of the workman and if the labour Court is satisfied that the workman is responsible for the delay of the disposal of the remitted proceedings, then, it is open to the management to stop the payment as ordered herein. It is also made clear that, if there is any default on the part of the writ petitioner in paying any of the monthly payments referred to https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 3 above, then this order would stand recalled without any further reference of this Court." 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner had submitted that the directions issued by this Court, by its order, dated 2.12.2005, had not been complied with, as the respondent had not paid the last drawn wages from the month of June, 2006. Thus, CSI Vellore Diocese, representing the Management of C.S.I. Jothi Nilayam Hospital, Vellore District, had committed contempt of Court. 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing for the respondent had submitted that the respondent had not committed contempt of Court, as there was no wilful disobedience of the order passed by this Court, on 2.12.2005 made in W.P.No.15976 of 2005. Since there was no Presiding Officer at the labour Court, Vellore District, the industrial dispute could not be disposed of, as directed by this Court. However, there has been some delay in the payment of the amount to be paid to the petitioner. 5. At the stage of the hearing of the contempt petition, the learned counsels appearing for the petitioner as well as the respondent had submitted that the matter has been settled out of Court by the parties in the contempt petition by the payment of certain amount of money by the respondent to the petitioner. In such circumstances, the https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/ 4 learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned had submitted that no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petition. 6. In view of the submissions made by the learned counsels appearing for the parties concerned, the contempt petition stand closed, as no further orders are required to be passed in the present contempt petitions. No costs. Witness the Hon'ble Thiru HEMANT LAXMAN GOKHALE, the Chief Justice of High Court at Madras, as aforesaid, this the 5th day of October, 2009. Sd/- DEPUTY REGISTRAR //Certified to be true copy// Dated at Madras this the day of 2009. 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/ 5 SMV CONTEMPT PETITION No.701/2006 THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN ORDER DATED : 05/10/2009 FOR APPROVAL :04/01/2010 APPROVED ON :04/01/2010 https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/hcservices/