N.Sivaraj, E.NO.127, and 3 Others Vs Mr. Bendoor Tarachand Bangera

¶1

ContP.No.2624 of 2025

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

¶3

Dated : 27.10.2025

¶4

CORAM

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE D.BHARATHA CHAKRAVARTHY

¶6

Cont.P.No.2624 of 2025

¶7

1.N.Sivaraj 2.S.Vijayan 3.G.Muni Sundaram 4.T.Velmurugan ...Petitioners Vs.

¶8

Mr. Bendoor Tarachand Bangera, The Managing Director, The Management of Dynamatic Technolgies Limited (JKM Auto), No. C- 23 & C-24, F-67 & F-68, JKM Park, SIPCOT Industrial Estate, Irungattukottai, Sriperumbudur, Kancheepuram District – 602 117. ...Respondent

¶9

PRAYER : Contempt Petition filed under Section 11 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971, pleased to issue a notice of contempt to the Respondent and punish the condemnor for committing contempt and gross disobedience of the Order passed by this Court in W.P. No. 19861 of 2018 and W.M.P. No. 23307 of 2018 dated 25.02.2025.

¶10

For Petitioner : Mr.T.Mariappan For Respondents : Mr.Vijayan for M/s.King and Partridge ORDER

¶11

1/6

¶12

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶13

ContP.No.2624 of 2025

¶14

This Contempt Petition is filed complaining willful disobedience of the order dated 31.01.2025 passed in W.P.No.19861 of 2018. The operative portion of the order as contained in Paragraph No.12 is extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

¶15

12.As a result, this Writ Petition is disposed of on the following terms:

¶16

(a) The common award of the Labour in I.D.Nos.219/2014 to I.D.No.229/2014 dated 11.04.2018, is upheld, as it declares that the non-employment of the 11 workmen involved in these disputes is unjustified.

¶17

(b) With reference to the relief that is granted, it is modified to the effect that the Workmen are entitled to reinstatement into service with continuity of benefits and full back wages, and are deemed to have been in service up to 31.12.2018. The Management shall pay all arrears of back wages up to 31.12.2018, by treating the services of the Workmen as continuous;

¶18

(c) The total arrears shallbe paid within eight weeks from the date of receiving or producing the web copy of this order, without awaiting the certified copy;

¶19

(d) The Workmen would have the opportunity to claim additional benefits with the current Management, which had taken over the undertaking through a transfer, in accordance with the law;

¶20

(e) No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petition is closed.

¶21

2/6

¶22

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶23

ContP.No.2624 of 2025

¶24

2.The grievance of the petitioner in the Contempt Petition is to twofold. Firstly the new management has not given any benefits including that of reinstatement which he is entitled to as per law. Secondly, he would also dispute as to the quantum of amount that is granted to him. In this regard, as far as the existing management is concerned their stand was made to be known in their communication dated 28.04.2025, whereby they were made the calculation as follows and they have adjusted the 17 (b) paid after the liability period also and according to them the entire amount has been paid and as a matter of fact excess amount of Rs.1,92,078 has been paid. The calculation given by them as contained in page No.14 is extracted hereunder:-

¶25

Wages Payable from July 2013to December 2018(A)	Rs.19,32,480/-
Gratuityupto 31.12.2018	Rs.1,59,282/-
Total Sum(A)+(B)=(C)	Rs.20,91,762/-
Last drawn wages paid during the pendency of the writpetition(D)	Rs.22,83,840/-
Excess amount received by you(D)–(C)	Rs.1,92,078/-

¶26

3.The learned counsel for the petitioner and as well as the respondents would reiterate their respective contentions. As far as the grievance as against the

¶27

3/6

¶28

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶29

ContP.No.2624 of 2025

¶30

new management is concerned, the order itself is very clear that the petitioner will be at liberty to make any claim in the manner known to law. As such nothing can be claimed in the Contempt Petition. As far as the quantum of amount is concerned, it can be seen that there is no willful disobedience. Even if the petitioner is alleging any error in calculation or the percentage of increment etc, it will be very well open for them to file a Computation Petition in the manner known to law. The management has an opportunity to explain the quantum of amount in detail. Therefore, giving open the liberty of the petitioner with reference to the remedies open to him, as no wilful disobedience is made out, the Contempt Petition stands closed.

¶31

27.10.2025

¶32

ep

¶33

Neutral citation : Yes/No

¶34

4/6

¶35

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

¶36

ContP.No.2624 of 2025