THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.251 OF 2011 Dated: 24.10.2011 Between: K. Dorai Swamy … Petitioner And 1. Dau Gopal Lunani, Managing Director, East India Commercial Company Limited, Rep. Sri Bajrang Jute Mills Limited, Pattabhipuram, Guntur-522006, Guntur District and another. … Respondents THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI CONTEMPT CASE No.251 OF 2011 ORDER : This contempt case is filed to punish the 1st respondent for alleged wilful disobedience of the order in W.P.No.29871 of 1998, dated 27.07.2005 as confirmed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 15.12.2010 in W.A.No.1548 of 2005. I have heard the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the material available on record. The petitioner herein was appointed as a Weaver in Sri Bajrang Jute Mills Limited, Guntur in the year 1962, the management of which was taken over by the 1st respondent herein w.e.f. 21.12.1994. The petitioner filed M.P.No.56 of 1995 under Section 33-C(2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 with a prayer to compute the monetary benefits due to him as per the computation table filed along with the petition together with subsequent interest at 24% per annum. The said petition was dismissed by the Labour Court by order dated 24.08.1998. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner filed W.P.No.29871 of 1998. This Court allowed the said writ petition by order dated 27.07.2005 with a direction to the management to pay the petitioner the wages from the date of dismissal i.e., 4.7.1985 till the date of attaining the age of superannuation as claimed by him in M.P.No.56 of 1995 within a period of three months. Against the said order, though the management filed W.A.No.1548 of 2005 the same was dismissed by the Division Bench by judgment dated 15.12.2010. It is pleaded in this contempt case that in pursuance of the judgment of the Division Bench, the petitioner made a representation dated 15.02.2011 furnishing the particulars of wages and other attendant benefits to which he is entitled to and requesting the management/1st respondent herein to pay the same at an early date. In response to the same, the 1st respondent by letter dated 16.02.2011 sent a cheque for Rs.22,424/- stating that the said amount was payable to him on par with other workers in the Weaving Department of the Company for the period from 5.7.1985 to 30.09.1997 on which date he attained the age of superannuation. According to the petitioner, the action of the 1st respondent in concluding that the petitioner is entitled to a sum of Rs.22,424/- only, particularly the observation made by the 1st respondent in the remarks column of the statement of wages payable to the petitioner amounted to voluntarily and knowingly disobeying the order of this Court in W.P.No.29871 of 1998. Hence this contempt case to punish the 1st respondent under the provisions of the Contempt of Courts Act. At the outset, it is to be noticed that M.P.No.56 of 1995 was filed under Section 33-C(2) in which the petitioner sought a direction for payment of monetary benefits due to him, which as per his calculation was Rs.1,55,202/-. The said petition was dismissed by the Labour Court. Thus there was no determination of wages to which the petitioner is entitled to. Though this Court allowed W.P.No.29871 of 1998, the quantum of amount payable by the management was not specified and the management was directed to pay the petitioner the wages from the date of dismissal till the date of attaining the age of superannuation as claimed by him in M.P.No.56 of 1995. It is not in dispute that after the dismissal of the Writ Appeal No.1548 of 2005 the management had paid Rs.22,424/- vide its Memo dated 16.2.2011. Admittedly during the pendency of the writ petition and the writ appeal, the management had paid certain amounts and after deducting the same, according to the management the petitioner is entitled to receive Rs.22,424/- in terms of the order passed by this Court in W.P.No.29871 of 1998. The fact that the petitioner has received the said amounts is also not in dispute. In view of the payment so made by the management, the allegation that the 1st respondent had violated the order of this Court cannot be accepted. Even assuming that there is any dispute with regard to the calculation of the amounts payable to the petitioner, having regard to the fact that there is no determination of the monetary benefits to which the petitioner is entitled to either by the Labour Court or by this Court, the Memo dated 16.2.2011 whereunder the amounts payable to the petitioner was determined by the Management gives rise to a fresh cause of action and therefore, if aggrieved, it is for the petitioner to seek redressal in an appropriate forum and it is not permissible to consider the correctness of the determination of the management in contempt proceedings. It is true that in the statement of wages enclosed to the Memo, dated 16.2.2011, it was observed by the Management as under: “Mill was under Lock-out from 7.2.1987 to 31.12.1987 under notice by the old management. Workers not entitled to wages in view of MOU dt. 29.1.1994 read with conciliation settlement dt. 26.12.1994 before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Guntur and also in view of the Scheme sanctioned by the BIFR dt. 16.6.1994.” The learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the said observations made by the 1st respondent shows that the management had calculated the amounts payable to the petitioner according to his own contentions which were already rejected by this Court in W.P.No.29871 of 1998 and W.A.No.1548 of 2005. I do not find any substance in the said contention since it appears to this Court that the observations made by the 1st respondent were only with reference to the period of Lock-out. Hence the Contempt Case is misconceived and the same is hereby dismissed. However this shall not preclude the petitioner to work out the appropriate remedy as available under law for determination and recovery of further amounts, if any, due to the petitioner. No costs. ______________ G. ROHINI, J. Dt. 24.10.2011 gbs