( 1 ) THE alleged contempt, arises out of an order passed by this Court dated 21-2-1997 in WPMP. 29034 of 1996 in WP. 23516 of 1996. The respondent is the writ petitioner. The award passed by the Labour Court dated 21-6-1996 was under challenge in the writ petition. When the writ petition has come up for admission, the interim order was passed on 21-2-1997, while admitting the writ petition, granting interim stay of operation of award of the Labour Court- I, hyderabad dated 21-6-1996 passed in ID. No. 599 of 1993 subject to the condition that the respondent, herein, pays last drawn wages, in accordance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act, to the respondent in the writ petition who is the petitioner in this case. Subsequently, on hearing the Counsel on both sides, the order was modified, vide order dated 24-4-1997, directing the respondent herein to pay the current wages in accordance with Section 17-B of the Industrial Disputes Act and the wages was directed to be paid on 10th of every month.

( 2 ) THIS contempt case has been filed by the respondent in the writ petition who is the petitioner herein alleging that the respondent herein had disobeyed the order of this Court. It is the case of the petitioner that, in the first instance, current wages have been paid to the petitioner in compliance with the order, but subsequently the respondent-writ petitioner discontinued to pay the current wages and started paying only the last drawn wages. It is complained that the respondent herein thus disobeyed the order of this Court which directed payment of current wages.

( 3 ) THE respondent-contemnor, appearing through an advocate, filed acounter-affidavit. It was averred in counter-affidavit as follows:- "accordingly we paid him all arrears of wages in that month only and continued to pay him wages upto the month of November, 1997. Copies of the documents viz. , the Calculation Memo and the covering letter duly acknowledged by the petitioner is produced as Annexure a . I submit that thereafter in Dena Bank vs. Kiritkumar T. Patel, reported in 1998-I-LLJ page 1, the Supreme Court interpreted the phrase "full wages last drawn" to mean wages payable at the time of termination of service and not as on the date of the award of the Labour Court. Accordingly the wages payable to him was revised and he was informed on 6th January, 1998 that so far he was paid a sum of Rs. 57,044. 75 but the actual wages payable to him as per the Supreme Court s Judgment is only Rs. 35,012. 12 and therefore he was paid an excess amount of Rs. 22,032. 63 and we will revert to him as and when the excess payment is adjusted. Copy of the letter dated 06-01-1998 is produced as Annexure b . I am advised to submit that the above judgment of the Supreme Court is the Law declared by it under Art. 141 of the Constitution of India overruling the judgment of this Hon ble Court interpreting Section 17-B of the ID Act. I had obtained legal advice on the same. I submit that even after receipt of our letter dated 6th January, 1998 and suppressing the contents of the said letter, the petitioner got issued a legal notice dated 05-02-1998 and i gave reply dated 9th February, 1998 to the advocate enclosing my letter dated 6th January, 1998. Copies of the notice dated 05-02-1998 and our reply dated 09-02-1998 are produced as Annexures c and d 40 respectively. I deny the allegation in para-3 that I have taken law into my own hands and deliberately flouted the orders of this Hon ble Court. I submit that i have got utmost respect for this Hon ble Court and I have no intention whatsoever to flout the orders of this Hon ble Court. It is all a question of interpretation of the phrase "full wages last drawn". This Hon ble court did not specify any amount to be paid by us in the stay order. As per the stay order we have to pay him wages in accordance with section 17-B of the ID Act. As per the latest judgment of the Supreme Court holding that "full wages last drawn" means

Click Here to Read the rest of this document