The court's decision was influenced by the interpretation of the relevant provisions of the Employees' Provident Funds and Miscellaneous Provisions Act, 1952 and the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962, and the finding that the government order was in conformity with the court's previous order.

1. These contempt petitions are filed on the ground that the order dated 24.01.2011 passed by this Court in W.P. Nos. 34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008 respectively, has not been complied with by the respondents.

2. The petitioners were employees of Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation, which is a creature of the Warehousing Corporations Act, 1962 (Central Act 58 of 1962). The petitioners made a request to the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation to constitute a Pension Scheme for them and in deference to their request, the Managing Director of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation sent a proposal dated 27.02.2001 to the Government for introducing Pension Scheme to the employees and officers of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation as applicable to the employees of the Tamil Nadu Housing Board, Tamil Nadu Slum Clearance Board, etc. The Government, by letter dated 16.07.2001, negatived the proposal on the ground that it would be an additional financial burden on the State exchequer. Challenging the said order passed by the Government and also seeking a mandamus to the Government to prepare a Pension Scheme, the petitioners filed W.P. Nos. 34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008. In the said writ petitions, a learned Single Judge of this Court passed final orders on 24.01.2011 in favour of the petitioners and there against, the writ appeals and Special Leave Petition filed by the Government were also dismissed. Thereafter, the Government passed G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department dated 09.12.2014 for implementing Pension Scheme for the employees of the Tamil Nadu Warehousing Corporation. Since the Government did not implement the orders passed by this Court as confirmed by the Supreme Court, the petitioners preferred the present petitions in Cont. Petition Nos.2013 and 2014 of 2014. When these Contempt Petitions came up for hearing on 12.03.2015, this Court passed the following order:

“The Government have passed an order in G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A1) Department dated 09.12.2014 in compliance of the orders passed by this Court in W.P. Nos.34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008 dated 24.01.2011, which was confirmed by the Supreme Court. In view of the subsequent events, the Contempt Petitions are closed.

2. It is open to the petitioners to challenge the order dated 24.01.2011 in case they are still aggrieved.”

3. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed Sub Application Nos.119 and 120 of 2015 for re-opening the order dated 12.03.2015 passed by this Court on the ground that G.O. (Ms.) No.136, Cooperation, Food and Consumer Protection (A2) Department dated 09.12.2014, does not comply with the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 24.01.2011 passed in W.P. Nos. 34640 of 2007 and 24409 of 2008.

4. The said Sub Applications were allowed by this Court on 11.09.2015 in the following terms:

“4. The order dated 12.03.2015 was passed in the absence of the counsel for the petitioners. The appearance recorded in the order appears to be not correct. The learned counsel for the petitioners now wanted to interpret the order passed by the Government for demonstrating that the respondents have not complied with the order passed by the Court in its true perspective. In view of the same, I consider it deem and fit to recall the order dated 12.03.2015 and restore the contempt petitions.

5. In the result, the order dated 12.03.2015 is recalled. The contempt petitions are restored to file.

6. Since I have passed the order dated 12.03.2015 and the same is now recalled. I consider it fit not to hear the matters henceforth.

7. Registry is therefore directed to place the contempt petitions before My Lord, the Hon'ble Chief Justice for posting before any other learned Judge for disposal.”

5. Pursuant thereto, the present Contempt Petitions are listed before this Court.

6. Heard Mr. S.T. Varadarajulu, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. K. Venkatramani, le