P. Kalayanasundaram, v. C.K.Ragavan,

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 24.02.2023

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MRS.JUSTICE S.SRIMATHY In W.P.(MD).No.2210 of 2011 R.Kalyanasundaram

...Petitioner/2nd respondent

vs.

Thiru.C.K.Ragavan, The General Manager, Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation (Kumbakonam) Limited, Karaikudi Region, Karaikudi.

... Contemnor PRAYER: Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, to punish the Contemnor for his wanton and willful disobedience of the order in W.P(MD)No.2210 of 2011 dated 03.02.2020.

For Petitioner : Mr.S.Arunachalam For Respondent : Mr.Balasubramanian, Standing Counsel 1/4

O R D E R

The Contempt Petition is filed alleging the disobedience of the order passed by this Court.

2. The petitioner was an employee in the respondent Corporation. There was some dispute among the parties and Industrial Dispute was also raised and award was passed by the Labour Court in favour of the petitioner for reinstatement. Challenging the award passed by the Labour Court, the writ petition in W.P(MD)No.2210 of 2011 was filed and the same was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondent has reinstated the petitioner with continuity of service and also the petitioner has attained on superannuation. The respondent has calculated the terminal benefits and paid the following to the petitioner:

1. Our Corporation paid backwages to the petitioner amount Rs.5,00,000/- vide cheque No.333592 dated 18.01.2023.

2. Balance paid backwages to the petitioner amount Rs.5,98,067/- vide cheque No.333967 dated 21.02.2023.

3. Gratuity paid to the petitioner amount Rs.4,36,560/- vide cheque No. 894582, dated 19.01.2023.

2/4

3. However, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner disputed the calculation of the respondent Corporation. Therefore, this Court is of the considered opinion that there is no contempt as alleged. However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to contest the case, in case, there is any discrepency in the calculation. The respondent is directed to furnish the calculation to the petitioner, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner pointed out that the respondent has not stated arrears of pension. The petitioner is at Liberty to contest the case by filing writ petition, if so advised.

4. With the above observations, this Contempt Petition is closed. 24.02.2023 Index : Yes / No Internet : Yes ksa 3/4

S.SRIMATHY, J ksa Order made in CONT. P(MD)No.142 of 2021 24.02.2023 4/4