← Library
Madras High CourtCONT P(MD)/1201/2024disposed of

T. Raju v. M. Daniel Salmon,

2025-03-10Honourable Mr.Justice Shamim Ahmed5 pages

BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT DATED: 10.03.2025

CORAM

THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE SHAMIM AHMED T.Raju ... Petitioner vs.

1.M.Daniel Salmon, General Manager, Tamilnadu State Transport Corporation (Madurai) Limited, Dindigul Region, Dindigul.

2.Bhama, Administrator, Tamilnadu State Transport Employees' Pension Fund Trust, Thiruvalluvar Illam, Anna Salai, Chennai -2.

... Respondents PRAYER: Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court to punish the contemnors/respondents for wilfully and deliberately disobeying and not complying with the order of this Court passed in W.P.(MD)No. 466 of 2022, dated 09.01.2022.

For Petitioner :Mr.V.R.Arunkumar For R1 :Mr.Ramachandra Pradeep For R2 :Mr.S.C.Herold Singh ***** 1/5

O R D E R

Heard Mr.V.R.Arunkumar, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr.Ramachandra Pradeep, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent.

2.This is a petition seeking initiation of contempt proceedings against the respondents for violation of the order in W.P.(MD)No. 466 of 2022, dated 09.01.2022, passed by this Court.

3.The petitioner was appointed as Conductor in the first respondent Corporation on 24.05.1988 and was retired from service on 31.12.2016, on attaining the age of superannuation as Special Grade Conductor. It is the further case of the petitioner that the retirement benefits of the petitioner were calculated only based on the last drawn salary and he is entitled for the retrospective revision of wages as per the settlement, dated 04.01.2018 entered into between the respondent Management and the Trade Unions. Hence, the petitioner had made several representations to the respondents seeking re-fixation of retirement benefits. Being aggrieved by the action of the respondents, the petitioner has preferred a Writ Petition bearing W.P.(MD)No.466 of 2020 and this Court by order, dated 09.01.2020 has made the following order:

2/5

"5.In view of the above observations, there shall be a direction to the respondents herein to consider the petitioner's representation, dated 15.10.2019 in terms of settlement under Section 12(3) of the Industrial Dispute Act, on its own merits and pass appropriate orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any of its view with regard to the claim made by the petitioner in his representation and it si for the respondents to consider it in accordance with law." 4.The learned Counsel for the petitioner further submits that despite the judgment and order passed by this Court in W.P.(MD)No. 466 of 2022, dated 09.01.2022, the respondents have not complied with the directions of this Court and have wilfully and deliberately flouting the order passed by this Court and that the respondents should be summoned and punished for committing contempt of Court under Sections 11 and 12 of the Contempt of Court Act.

5.When the matter is taken up for hearing, Mr.Ramachandra Pradeep, learned Standing Counsel for the first respondent and Mr.S.C.Herold Singh, learned Standing Counsel for the second respondent submit that in compliance of the direction of this Court, the amount, which is due to the petitioner, has been credited to the account of the petitioner and further submit that the order passed by this Court W.P.(MD)No. 466 of 2022, dated 09.01.2022, has been fully complied with and thus, the respondents may be 3/5

discharged from the present contempt proceedings and the Contempt Petition may be disposed of accordingly.

6.Mr.S.Arunachalam, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the order passed by this Court has been fully complied with by the respondents and he submits that the respondents may be discharged from the present contempt proceedings and the Contempt Petition may be disposed of accordingly.

7.Considering the submissions made by the learned Counsels for the parties, this Court is satisfied that the respondents have fully complied with the judgment and order of this Court. Thus, no useful purpose will be served in continuing the present contempt proceedings further. Accordingly, the respondents are discharged from the present contempt proceedings and the present Contempt Petition is disposed of. The file is consigned to record. No costs.

Index :Yes / No 10.03.2025 Internet :Yes / No NCC :Yes / No cmr 4/5

SHAMIM AHMED, J.

cmr 10.03.2025 5/5