IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JANUARY, TWO THOUSAND TEN PRESENT: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1724 of 2009 Between: Sri K.V.S. Ramachandra Rao … Petitioner And T. Hanumantha Rao … Respondent Counsel for the petitioner : Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj Counsel for the respondent : Sri Kuldeep Jadhav for Sri V. Rajagopal Reddy This Court made the following: THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY CONTEMPT CASE No.1724 of 2009 ORDER:- This contempt case is filed alleging willful disobedience of order dated 03.12.2008 in Writ Petition No.32908 of 1998. In paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit, the respondent has stated as under: “It is further submitted that pursuant to the orders of the Hon’ble Court petitioner is reinstated on 06.03.2009 as F&B Controller/Accounts. The respondent paid Rs.5,31,710/- as full and final payment of back wages and attendant benefits from the year 1993 to 2009 by way of cheque dated 27.05.2009 taking into account continuity of service and attendant benefits as well as full back wages.” Ms. Vasudha Nagaraj, learned counsel for the petitioner, submitted that the respondent has not calculated the back wages properly and that the petitioner is entitled to receive much more than the sum of Rs.5,31,710/- paid to him. The fact that the respondent has calculated the purported back wages and paid the same to the petitioner is not in dispute. Therefore, if the calculation is not properly made and the petitioner is entitled to receive some more amounts, he is entitled to seek appropriate relief by approaching the Labour Court under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 for payment of the amounts allegedly due to him. As the respondent has already paid the back wages as per its calculation, I have no reason to conclude that he has consciously violated the orders of this Court. Therefore, the contempt case is dismissed with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Labour Court for claiming the amounts allegedly due to him in excess of the amounts already received from the respondent. _____________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY, J Date: 29.01.2010 ES