IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 03.07.2008 C O R A M THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE P.R.SHIVAKUMAR Contempt Petition No.505 of 2008 K.Duraisamy ... Petitioner Vs. K.A.Annamalai The Special Officer, The Vellore Co-operative Sugar Mills Ltd Ammundi Vellore Sugar Mills Post Vellore District - 632 519 ... Respondent Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act to punish the respondent for the willful and deliberate disobedience of the order of the Hon'ble Court dated 22.03.2005 made in W.P.M.P.No.19536 of 2004 in W.P.No.5815 of 2004. For Petitioner : J.Saravanavel O R D E R Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The petitioner was the workman under the respondent herein. As against his dismissal from service, the petitioner raised an industrial dispute before the Labour Court, Vellore, which ended in his favour and an award was passed by the Labour Court directing reinstatement without back wages. The award was passed on 22.12.2003. The said award was challenged by the respondent herein in W.P.No.5815/2004. Pending disposal of the writ petition, an interim order staying the operation of the award was also sought for and this court was pleased to pass an order of interim stay. Subsequently, when the petitioner entered appearance in the said writ petition, he filed W.P.M.P.No.19536/2004 for a direction regarding payment of last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act. After hearing, this court, by order dated 22.03.2005, disposed of the above said petition with the following order. "This petition is disposed of on the following conditions: i) The petitioner shall pay the last drawn wages from the date of award till date directly to the second respondent within four weeks from today; ii) The petitioner shall continue to pay the last drawn wage on or before 5th of every month to the second respondent, provided the second respondent files an affidavit of non-employment before this court. In default of either of above conditions, the interim stay granted shall stand vacated automatically." 3. Now, the petitioner has come forward with the present contempt petition praying that the respondent should be punished for contempt based on the contention that the said directions incorporated in the order dated 22.03.2005 has not been complied with and on the other hand, the respondent has deliberately omitted to comply with the same. 4. After going through the said order of this court dated 22.03.2005, this court raised a question as to how the non-compliance of the two conditions stipulated therein in the said order would amount to contempt of court, when the consequence of non-compliance itself has been incorporated in the said order. The learned counsel for the petitioner referred to Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and the judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Bharat Singh Vs. Management of New Delhi Tuberculosis Centre, New Delhi and others reported in (1986) 2 Supreme Court Cases 614 and in Todi Industries Limited Vs. Union of India and others reported in 1999(5) Supreme Court Cases 230 and contended that the employer who chose to challenge the award of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court or the Industrial Tribunal was bound to pay last drawn wages in accordance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, if three conditions were found to exist. The three conditions referred to are 1) There must be an award of the Labour Court or the Tribunal directing reinstatement; 2) The employer should have challenged it either before the High Court or before Supreme Court after the writ petition before the High Court is decided against such employer. and 3) The employee should have filed an affidavit of non-employment. 5. After going through the judgments cited for reference in this case by the learned counsel for the petitioner, this court is in complete agreement with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the liability of the employer to pay last drawn wages under Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, in case of employer's failure to provide employment in accordance with the award, is absolute and that even the High Court cannot pass an order directing not to pay the 17-B wages if the three conditions exist. But, where the non-fulfillment of the obligation under Section 17- B will amount to a contempt court, is the question to be decided in this petition. 6. The learned counsel for the petitioner would contend that as the said statutory right had merged with an order of the court directing the respondent herein to pay wages under Section 17-B pending disposal of the writ petition, the failure to comply with the direction will amount to contempt. There won't be any difficulty in accepting the said contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner, if at all there is an unqualified direction by the court, to say that the statutory right has merged with an order of the court. On the other hand, in cases, wherein the direction is given only as a condition for granting a stay or extending stay with a further observation incorporating the consequence of such a non-observance of the direction, it cannot be said that the statutory right merged with the order of the court. 7. In the case on hand, the order dated 22.03.2005 directs that the respondent should pay 17-B wages and continue to pay the same as a condition for the continuance of the order of stay of operation of award passed by the Labour court. It proceeds further to indicate that, in case of default, the order of stay would get automatically vacated. When a direction is given as a condition for granting or extending the stay indicating that the stay shall stand vacated as a compliance of such direction, in the absence of any observation that the non-compliance of the direction would also attract an action in contempt proceedings besides the order of stay being vacated, this court, is not in a position to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the act of non- payment of P.R.SHIVAKUMAR, J., ASR the statutory dues under Section 17-B would attract an action in contempt proceedings. The contempt petition is misconceived and the same deserves to be dismissed. 7. In the result this contempt petition is dismissed. No cost. However, it is made clear that the petitioner can seek further direction before the appropriate bench. 03.07.2008 Index : Yes Internet : Yes asr Cont. Petn.No.505 of 2008