Cont.P.No.1265 of 2018
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED: 06.09.2022
CORAM :
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.M.SUBRAMANIAM
Contempt Petition No.1265 of 2018
S.Abdul Saleem .. Petitioner
Vs.
1. Thiru. Pandi
The Managing Director
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kovai) Ltd
Coimbatore.
2. Thiru. Muniyappan
The Administrator
Tamil Nadu State Transport
Employees' Pension Fund Trust
Thiruvalluvar Illam, Anna Salai
Chennai - 2. .. Respondents
Prayer : Petitions filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Courts Act,
1971 to punish the respondents for willfully disobeying and not complying
with the order of this Hon'ble Court dated 11.07.2016 in W.P.No.23526 of
2016.
___________
Page 1 of 5
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis
Cont.P.No.1265 of 2018
For the Petitioner : Mr.V.Ajoy Khose
For the Respondents : Mr.A.Sundaravardhanam
for respondent 1
Mr.C.S.K.Sathish
for respondent 2
ORDER
The contempt petition is filed to punish the respondents for their willful disobedience of the orders of this Court dated 11.07.2016 passed in W.P.No.23526 of 2016, the relevant portion of which reads as under:
“5. Considering the fact that the issue involved in these writ petitions is squarely covered by the orders passed by this Court in similar circumstances, without going into the merits of the matter, the Managing Director and General Manager of the respective Transport Corporation are directed to disburse the aforementioned retiral benefits to the petitioners herein in twelve equal monthly installments, in the light of the common judgment passed by this Court in W.A.(MD).N0s.383 to 457 of 2015 (K.Rajendran & ___________ Page 2 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1265 of 2018 Others vs. The Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, rep. by its Managing Director, Madurai and others), dated 12.06.2015. It is also made clear that the first installment shall commence from 01.10.2016.
6. With the above direction, these writ petitions are disposed of. No costs.”
2. Pursuant to the directions, the respondents settled the terminal and retiral benefits due to the employee concerned. However, learned counsel for the contempt petitioner made a submission that the interest as applicable has not been settled so far and further, there are certain disputes regarding the calculation of terminal benefits.
3. This Court is of the considered opinion that such calculation disputes cannot be resolved in contempt proceedings. The contempt petition cannot be a platform to adjudicate these issues on merits. It is not in dispute that the amount of terminal benefits were settled as per by the respondents. If at all any difference arose between the parties, the petitioner has to ___________ Page 3 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1265 of 2018 approach the competent authorities for resolving the same. Contrarily, the High Court cannot be made as an Execution Court wherein, the correctness of the calculation is to be verified. In the event of any mistake, error or difference, the petitioner is at liberty to approach the competent authorities, who in-turn verify the same and resolve the issue in the manner known to law. Thus, keeping the contempt petition pending and adjudication of such disputed issue is undoubtedly impermissible and beyond the scope of contempt proceedings.
4. As far as the directions are concerned, the amount has been settled and thus, the contempt petition stands closed.
06.09.2022 Index : Yes/No drm ___________ Page 4 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis Cont.P.No.1265 of 2018 S.M.SUBRAMANIAM,J (drm) Contempt Petition No.1265 of 2018 06.09.2022 ___________ Page 5 of 5 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis