C.A.C.P. No.3 of 2011 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.A.C.P.No.3 of 2011 Date of decision: 29.3.2011 Ranjit Singh ...Appellant Versus Kanwar Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. M.K.Tewari, Advocate for the appellant. ADARSH KUMAR GOEL, J. (Oral) 1. This appeal has been preferred against order dated 28.1.2011 seeking initiation of contempt proceedings for violation of judgment of this Court dated 14.9.2007. 2. The workman was employed with the appellant. His services were terminated on 18.2.1969. He raised an industrial dispute which led to passing of award dated 2.2.1978 directing reinstatement of the workman with continuity of service and back wages to the extent of 30%. However, award was modified at the instance of the workman vide judgment dated 4.10.1996 and the workman was held entitled to full back wages. The workman thereafter filed another writ petition for implementation of the judgment which was allowed on 22.10.1997. Thereafter, the management sought to make a cut from the back wages on the C.A.C.P. No.3 of 2011 -2- **** ground that workman was gainfully employed during the relevant period. On the writ petition filed by the workman, the action of the management was set aside which was also upheld by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 13.7.2009. Thereafter workman sought initiation of contempt proceedings. The appellant took the stand that amount of back wages had been paid without interest and contempt proceedings were not maintainable. 3. Learned Single Judge held that the appellant was under obligation to pay interest in terms of order dated 22.10.1997. Interest having not been paid, appropriate response was directed to be filed to justify non payment of pay interest. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the appellant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that contempt proceedings were not maintainable in view of alternative remedy and also earlier judgment of learned Single Judge having merged in order of Division Bench. He submits that direction to the appellant to file a response justifying non payment of interest was without jurisdiction. 6. We are unable to accept the submission. If the appellant has complied with the order of this Court, he can show the same before learned Single Judge. If the order has not been complied, alternative remedy or doctrine of merger cannot affect the contempt jurisdiction. Moreover, observations in the impugned order are only prima-facie and the appellant has only been asked to file affidavit justifying non payment of interest in view of order dated 22.10.1997 requiring the appellant to pay interest. The matter has not yet been C.A.C.P. No.3 of 2011 -3- **** finally decided. It is not possible for us to hold that learned Single Judge could not go into the question whether the direction in the earlier order of this Court has been complied with or not. No ground is made out to interfere with the impugned order. 7. Dismissed. (Adarsh Kumar Goel) Judge March 29, 2011 (Ajay Kumar Mittal) Pka Judge