Sri Bramaiah, v. Sri T.N.Ramalingam
Case brief
What is this about?
This contempt case regarding violation of directions on reinstatement and back-wages was closed because the respondent had reinstated petitioners and paid 50% back-wages, though recalculations pending. Pending applications closed.
What did the court decide?
Contempt case closed; pending miscellaneous applications closed.
What the court decided
A compact analysis
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE R. SUBHASH REDDY AND HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE A.RAJASHEKER REDDY
CONTEMPT CASE No.1086 of 2014
JUDGMENT : (Per Justice R. Subhash Reddy)
This contempt case is filed, alleging that respondent has willfully and deliberately violated the directions issued by this Court in the order dated 26.07.2013, passed in W.A.No.985 of 2004.
The writ appeal filed by the petitioners herein in W.A.No.985 of 2004 is allowed in part, directing the respondent-management to pay 50% of back-wages by confirming the reinstatement.
During the course of hearing, it is brought to our notice that as the respondent-management has already reinstated the petitioners and also issued proceedings dated 02.06.2015, in Proceedings No.EE/LLC/Dn./EC1/E.1-I/2015-16/515M, for payment of the 2nd instalment amount of 50% back-wages as directed by this Court. As much as 50% of back-wages are now paid, we are of the view that it is not a fit case to proceed further under the Contempt of Courts Act.
However, it is represented by the learned counsel for petitioners that 50% of the back-wages are not calculated as per the revised payscales. If there is any discrepancy in the calculations or if the petitioners are claiming back-wages as per the revised payscales, it is for
the petitioners to make a representation to the respondent, and we are sure that if any such representation is made, respondent will look into the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. Subject to the above observations, the contempt case is closed. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.
Parties & counsel
- petitioner
Petitioners
- respondent
Respondent-management
Coram
R. Subhash Reddy
Case details
As recorded by the court registry
- Court
- Telangana HC
- Decided on
- · July
- Registered
- Case no.
- CC/1086/2014
Similar cases
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court