IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS DATED: 10.3.2008 CORAM THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.JAICHANDREN Contempt Petition No.456 of 2001 Spencers Group Aerated Water Factory Employees Union (regn.No.2227/MDS) rep. by its General Secretary 32, V.O.C. Nagar, III Street Dr.Ambedkar College Road Chennai-600 012 .. Petitioner vs. 1. H.Anraj Managing Director Viswadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd., No.5, Haddows Road Chennai-600 006 2. Collector of Chengai District Kancheepuram 3. Tahsildar Kanchipuram Taluk Big Kancheepuram 4. G.Dayanand S/o.M.S.Govindaswamy No.6, Bhudhavihar Road Cox Town, Bangalore-5 5. K.N.Krishnamurthy S/o.(Late) K.N.Narasimha Rao No.388, Basettypet, Chickpet Cross Bangalore  560 003 (Respondents 4 and 5 impleaded as per order dated 28.1.2005 made in Cont.P.No.456 of 2001) .. Respondents The Contempt Petition has been filed under Section 10 & 12 of The Contempt of Courts Act, 70/71, to punish the first respondent for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the orders of this Court, dated 21.12.1998, in W.P.No.18617 of 1997. For petitioner : Mr.V.Govardhan for M/s.Row & Reddy For respondents : Mr.T.Thiagarajan for R1 No Appearance for R2 and R3 Mr.A.Muthukumar for R4 and R5 O R D E R This contempt petition has been filed praying that this Court may be pleased to punish the first respondent for wilfully and deliberately disobeying the order of this Court, dated 21.12.1998, made in W.P.No.18617 of 1997. 2. It is stated that the petitioner Union had filed a writ petition before this Court praying for a writ of Mandamus directing the Government to issue a certificate on the applications, dated 30.8.1997 and 3.11.1997, under Section 33-C(1) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, and consequently, to direct the second and third respondents to recover the amounts and to pay the same to the workmen who are the members of the petitioner Union. 3. By a common award, dated 31.5.1994, the Industrial Tribunal, Madras, in ID Nos.88 of 1993 and 37 of 1993, had held that the transfer of workmen concerned in the dispute was illegal. The Tribunal had directed the Management of Spencers to reinstate the workmen in service with all benefits. Since the award had been passed against the Spencers, the Tribunal did not grant any relief against the M/s.Viswadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd., though it had held that the stoppage of work by the said firm was not justified. After various rounds of litigation, the petitioner Union had filed a writ petition before this Court in W.P.No.18617 of 1997, praying for a writ of Mandamus to direct the Management of M/s.Viswadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd., to pay wages from 1.9.1997, as per Section 25-0(6) of The Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. The writ petition had been allowed by this Court, on 21.12.1998, holding that the Management had admitted their liability to pay the workers. It was also held that financial constrains cannot be a proper excuse for the Management to refuse the payment of wages to the workers for the work they had already done. Two months time was granted for complying with the order to pay the wages due to the workers. The present contempt petition had arisen alleging that the order passed by this Court had not been complied with by the respondents. 4. Paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent, on 25.7.2002, reads as follows: "3. In the contempt application, the applicants have restricted their claim for wages from 1.5.2002. In the writ petition, they have claimed wages from 1.9.1997 as per the order of this Hon'ble Court. Even prior to the said date of 1.9.1997, I have ceased to be a Director of the Company. I resigned from the Company as early as 5.6.1997 and Form 32 prescribed under the Companies Act was duly filed. The said Form very clearly states that I resigned from the Company with effect from 5.6.1997. The writ petition itself was filed only on 24.11.1997 and the order of the above writ petition was passed by this Hon'ble Court on 21.12.1998. Therefore, I have not disobeyed any orders of this Hon'ble Court as I ceased to be a Director even before the said writ was filed." The above said submissions made in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit filed by the first respondent are not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner. 5. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the respondents 4 and 5 have been impleaded as per the order of this Court, dated 28.1.2005, made in Contempt Petition No.456 of 2001. 6. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the second respondent that the properties of M/s.Viswadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd., had been attached by the District Collector, Chengai District, pursuant to the order of this Court made in W.P.No.18617 of 1997, relating to which the present contempt petition had arisen. 7. It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the attachment of the properties of M/s.Viswadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd., by the District Collector, Chengai District, had been challenged before this Court in W.P.No.4975 of 2006, and this Court had granted an order of interim stay of further proceedings in the matter and an Official Liquidator had also been appointed by this Court by an order, dated 5.6.2002, in C.P.No.138 of 1996, with regard to the properties belonging to M/s.Viswadarshan Distributors Pvt. Ltd. In such circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause or reason to punish the respondents for contempt of Court as prayed for in the present contempt petition. Hence, the contempt petition stands closed. Consequently, connected Sub Application No.393 of 2007 is also closed. No costs. 10.3.2008 lan INDEX : YES/NO INTERNET : YES/NO To: 2. Collector of Chengai District Kancheepuram 3. Tahsildar Kanchipuram Taluk Big Kancheepuram M.JAICHANDREN J., Contempt Petition No.456 of 2001 10.3.2008