Anil Kumar, J.

1. The Petitioners have challenged the order dated 27th January, 2009 passed in CP No. 456/2008 in OA No. 73/2004 discharging the contempt notice and affording another opportunity to the Petitioners to implement the order dated 29th November, 2004 passed in OA No. 73/2004, wherein the Petitioners were directed to reckon the training period as eligible period for the benefits under ACP Scheme and to pass a speaking and reasoned order within a period of three months. The order of the Tribunal has primarily been challenged on behalf of the Petitioners on the grounds, which were enumerated by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners, Mr. Sinha, during the arguments on 5th September, 2011. The pleas raised on behalf of the Petitioners are as under:

(i) The Tribunal erred in taking cognizance and initiating the contempt for non-compliance of the order dated 24th November, 2004, which was four years old in view of Section 20 of the Contempt of Courts Act.

(ii) Correctness of implementation of the said order or otherwise cannot be considered and re-agitated in contempt proceedings, if at all, as this amounts to fresh cause of action and the person aggrieved has other cau