IMPORTANT POINT
Contempt of Court – Contempt proceedings cannot be used to circumvent proper adjudication mechanisms.

JUDGMENT :

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

1. These contempt petitions have been preferred alleging non-compliance of the directions issued by this Court dated 17.01.2018 while dismissing the Civil Appeal Nos. 6732–6733 of 2009, whereby the respondent- Bank was directed to release the outstanding dues payable to the Petitioner within a period of three months as ordered by the High Court.

2. The brief facts leading to the filing of the present contempt petitions are that the Petitioner - A.K. Jayaprakash was working as the Manager with the Nedungadi Bank Ltd. He was dismissed from service on the grounds of certain irregularities in the sanctioning of loans, overdrafts, cheques discounting, and delay in reporting. The dismissal was challenged before the Deputy Commissioner of Labour under the Tamil Nadu Shops and Establishment Act, 1947. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, Tirunelveli set aside the dismissal order and reinstated the Petitioner - A. K. Jayaprakash.

3. Challenge to this decision was made before the Madras High Court by the Bank on the plea that the Labour Commissioner should not have proceeded to decide the matter being beyond the period of limitation, and the said plea/ground taken has not been decided. This led to the remand of the matter to the Labour Commissioner for fresh decision with the direction to decide the issue of delay first and thereafter the merits.

4. The Deputy Commissioner of Labour, on remand, proceeded to decide the said question of delay by condoning the same on the basis of the medical certificate produced. The mis-conduct as alleged against the Manager was also found to be not based on any justifiable grounds apart from the fact that there was no mala fide or dishonesty involved in the conduct. No loss was also caused to the Bank. Rather, the business of the Bank had improved and the loans recovered on time. Thus, reinstating the Petitioner - A.K. Jayaprakash.

5. This was again challenged before the Madras High Court, where the decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Labour was upheld. However, the back wages were limited to 60%.

6. The Division Bench of the Madras High Court, where the Bank approached, dismissed the appeal. It would not be out of the way to mention here that in the meantime, the Nedungadi Bank came to be merged with Punjab National Bank and therefore the appeals were preferred by the Punjab National Bank before this Court being Civil Appeal Nos.6732-6733 of 2009, which came to be dismissed vide order dated 17.01.2018. The said order reads as follows:-

“Heard.

We find no ground to interfere with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court. However, it is made clear that the outstanding amount be paid within a period of three months.

Consequently, the appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.”

7. The above direction having not been complied with which mandated payment of outstanding amount within three months, the Petitioner - A.K. Jayaprakash submitted his representation not only claiming the back wages but also the pension, pensionary benefits and the provident funds etc. The said representation of the Petitioner was considered and rejected. The benefit of back wages was also not released although the said claim was not denied. Despite various representations having been submitted with no result, the present contempt petitions have been preferred by the Petitioner- A.K. Jayaprakash.

8. Upon notice having been issued, reply has been filed, wherein it is found that the Petitio