The main legal point established in the judgment is the responsibility of the first respondent in complying with the award and the court's authority to attach and order the sale of the first respondent's property for the recovery of dues payable to the employees.

THE CHIEF JUSTICE & T.S.SIVAGNANAM, J.

1. This contempt petition has been filed to punish the first respondent Mr.S.Srinivasan, for having committed comtempt of Court for willfully disobeying the order and direction issued by this Court in W.A.No.1031 of 2004, dated 30.04.2004.

2. The writ appeal was filed by the first respondent, contemnor and M/s.Kilburn Electrical Limited against the order passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.No.14028 of 2002, dated 23.12.2003, wherein a direction was issued to the respondents 2 to 4 therein including the first respondent/first contemnor, to implement the award of the Industrial Tribunal in complaint No.17 of 1999, dated 9.08.2001. The writ petitioner was Macneil and Magor Kilburn Group Companies Employees Union, represented by its Secretary. The petitioner in this contempt petition is the Secretary of the said employees Union.

3. Before we examine the issue relating to the disobedience alleged in this petition, it would be necessary to taken note of certain facts, which led to the present situation.

4. A complaint was filed under Section 33A of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, (I.D. Act) by the M/s.Macneil and Magor Kilburn Group Companies Employees Union against the Macneil and Magor Ltd., Kuilburn Electrical Ltd., Kilburn Control Systems Ltd., Kilburn Starters Ltd., and Kilburn Fabrication Ltd. In the said industrial dispute, the issue relating to transfer of undertaking of its employees from Macneil and Magor Ltd., to the other four companies was referred for adjudication. In the complaint, the employees Union contended that during the pendency of the dispute, the management of the other four companies altered the service conditions of the employees without obtaining prior permission from the Industrial Tribunal. From June 1991 to 16th August 1992 except for 75 employees, the four companies denied employment to 134 employees. On a dispute raised by the Union, they agreed to provide employment with effect from 17.08.1992 for 15 days work every month. Once again, there was denial of employment without permission from the Tribunal to all the 209 employees. Subsequently, a settlement was arrived at on 07.02.1994 and another settlement on 24.03.2005 and the management agreed to provide employment for six days a week, however both the settlements were not implemented. The sum and substance of the allegations is that the four companies violated the provisions of Section 33 of the Industrial Disputes Act and deprived the workmen work and wages. It is further stated that this Court in W.P.No.12987 of 1991, filed by the Union passed an interim order on 13.03.1992, directing the first respondent herein who was managing the companies to pay the employees contribution to the Provident Fund Department into a separate account pending disposal of the writ petition. The first respondent did not comply with the order and the respondent antedated a notice dated 31.10.1999, on the companys notice board at Ambattur Factory on 08.11.1999, informing the suspension of operations of Kilburn Starters Ltd., with effect from 1.11.1999. Further allegation is that the respondent was moving the employees from one unit to another and one location to another to evade liability. Therefore, it was contended that the action of the four companies is an unfair labour practice and amounts to victimization. Further, it was stated that the respondent denied settlement benefits like uniforms, shoes, spectacles, etc. Therefore, a prayer was made before the Industrial Tribunal to hold that the action of the respondent laying of and suspending operation and declaring lock out of the units as illegal and in contravention to Section 33 of the I.D. Act and to direct the four companies to pay the employees arrears of backwages and lay off compensation etc.

5. Before the Tribunal, Kilburn Electrical Limited and Kilburn Starters Ltd., the respondents 2 & 4 before the Tribunal filed counter affidavit. It is contende