JUDGMENT - Dr. D.Y. CHANDRACHUD, J.:---The petitioner was in the employment of Air India, the first respondent since, 1980. On 16th March, 1990 he was suspended in view of contemplated disciplinary proceedings. The petitioner as an employee under suspension was entitled to subsistence allowance. Aggrieved by what he considered as the nonpayment of the full amount of subsistence allowance, the petitioner preferred an application under section 33-C (2) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 before the Central Government Labour Court No. 1. The application was disposed of by an order dated 10th June, 1999 by which the petitioners was held to be entitled to the payment of a sum of Rs. 2,56,956/- and a direction for the payment of that amount came to be issued against the first respondent. The first respondent challenged the order of the Central Government Labour Court in Writ Petition No. 1621 of 1999 before this Court. By an order dated 4th February, 2000 passed by the learned Single Judge, the aforesaid order of the Labour Court came to be modified and the petition was disposed of in the following terms:-

"The petitioner Air India Limited is directed to compute the subsistence allowance payable to the respondent employee Jadgish Vishindas Gursahani for the period of suspension in accordance with the Model Standing Orders (Central) within 10 days from today in the presence of the respondent. After adjusting the amount already paid, the difference arrived at from the said computation shall be paid to the respondent employee within one week from such computation. In case of any delay by petitioner in making the aforesaid amount, they would be liable to pay the dues amount payable to the respondent with interest at the rate of 15% per annum.

The petitioner Air India Limited is also directed to extend the benefit of the settlement dated 31-12-95 and 5-5-96 as and when benefit of the said settlements is extended to its other employees without discriminating to the petitioner.

The order passed by the Central Government Industrial Tribunal on 10-6-99 stands modified in terms aforestated."

As a result of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the subsistence allowance that was payable for the period of suspension was to be computed in accordance with the Model Standing Orders (Central). This exercise was to be done in the presence of the petitioner herein within ten days. Thereafter within one week, the amount which was payable to the petitioner under the said computation was to be paid after adjusting what had already been paid to him. Interest at 15% was liable to be paid in the event of a delay in payment. The benefit of the two settlements dated 31st December, 1995 and 5th May, 1996 could be extended to the petitioner as and when that benefit was given to other employees.

2. On 9th February, 2000 in compliance with the order passed by this Court, the Advocates of the first respondent requested the petitioner to attend a meeting which would be convened for the purpose of computing the amount which was due to him. This meeting was admittedly held. Thereafter another meeting came to be held on 16th February, 2000 which was attended, inter alia, by the officials of the Personnel Department and of the Accounts Department of the first respondent. A recording letter dated 16th February, 2000 came to be written to the petitioner enclosing a photocopy of the chart of the calculations which had been carried out by the officials of the first respondent. The first respondent computed the total amount which was due to the petitioner as and by way of subsistence allowance for the period 1st September, 1990 to 15th March, 1996 as Rs. 1,89,278/-. From this amount, an amount of Rs. 27,261/- was deducted on account of Income tax and Surcharge, thus leaving a balance of Rs. 1,62,017/- as due and payable to the petitioner. The letter dated 16th February, 2000 is at Exhibit-G to the Contempt petition and contains the relevant Chart at pages 22-23. The

Click Here to Read the rest of this document