APHC010043602025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) [3330] FRIDAY, THE 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2026 PRESENT THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.323 of 2025 Between: 1. NANNURU RAJASEKHARAIAH, S/O N. BASAVAIAH, OCC CONDUCTOR, E.NO.406793, R/O 51-967, C.SEETHARAM NAGAR, KURNOOL, KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...PETITIONER AND 1. THE HONBLE INDUSTRIAL TRIBUNALCUM LABOUR COURT, REP. BY ITS PRESIDING OFFICER, ANANTHAPUR. 2. SRI B AMARNATH, DEPOT MANAGER, A.P.S.R.T.C., YEMMIGANUR BUS DEPOT, YEMMIGANUR,KURNOOL DISTRICT. ...CONTEMNOR(S): Petition under Sections 10 to 12 of Contempt of Courts Act 1971 praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit file herein the High Court may be pleased to pleased to punish the contemnors/respondents under Section 10 AND 12 of the Contempt of Court Act, 1971 for their intentional, deliberate, willful violation and disobedience of the Orders of the Honble High Court dated 26.12.2022 in WP.No.1455 of 2017. 2 Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. THALLURI NEETU KUMAR Counsel for the Contemnor(S): 1. ARAVALA RAMA RAO(SC FOR APSRTC KKAC) 2. The Court made the following: 3 THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.323 of 2025 ORDER: The contempt petitioner was an employee in the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (APSRTC) and he was removed from the service on some allegations. The contempt petitioner herein filed I.D.No.34 of 2000 to set aside the order of removal. The Tribunal was pleased to pass an award dated 16.02.2016 allowing the I.D. and setting aside the removal order passed by the Department and directed to reinstate the petitioner herein into service, but however without back wages deferring one annual increment with cumulative effect. The order of the Tribunal was assailed in the present Writ Petition No.1455 of 2017. This Court, vide order dated 26.12.2022, has modified the order by setting aside the order to the extent of deferment of one annual increment with cumulative effect and directed the Department to pay 50% back wages from the date of removal to the date of realisation. For non-implementation of the said order dated 26.12.2022 in W.P.No.1455 of 2017, the present Contempt Case is filed. 2. The 2nd respondent-Depot Manager filed counter affidavit in the Contempt Case and it is asserted that the payment of back wages to the petitioner was duly prepared and sent to the Audit and accordingly, the 4 audit has passed the calculations and arrived an amount of Rs.6,70,001/- payable as back wages and an amount of Rs.91,357/- to be remitted as PF contribution. And the said amount was credited to the account of the petitioner on 20.08.2025 to the account No.62475280531. It is further stated that the petitioner is not eligible for payment of allowances that used to be paid to the employee who performed physical duty only. 3. Now the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that as per the wages defined under Section 2(rr) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, it includes house rent allowance, night shift allowance, heat, gas and dust allowance and incentive allowance and the respondents have not paid the house rent allowance and in support of his contention, he relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in M/s. Harihar Polyfibres Vs. Regional Director, ESI Corporation reported in (1984) 4 SCC 324 and hence argued that the petitioner is entitled for an amount of Rs.10,50,161/- a house rent allowance and the respondents have already paid Rs.6,70,001/- and balance amount of Rs.3,80,160/- is not paid. Hence, pleads to punish the respondents under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. 5 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents vehemently contended that the instant petition is not maintainable for enforcing the award as upheld by the order of this Court (dated 26.12.2022) and the petitioner, if so advised, may take recourse to the remedy available under Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947. 5. This Court partly allowed the writ petition, set aside the order deferring the cumulative effect, and directed the respondents to pay 50% of the back wages. This is an executable order under Section 11(9) of the Industrial Disputes Act. Furthermore, the respondents have paid substantial amounts to the contempt petitioner. To punish under Sections 10 and 12 of the Contempt of Courts Act, the petitioner must prove wilful disobedience of the Court order under Section 2(b) of the Industrial Disputes Act, which reads thus, “civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 6. In the case of Hukum Chand Deswal vs Satish Raj Deswal reported in (2021) 13 SCC 166, held that the Court exercising contempt jurisdiction is primarily concerned with the question of contumacious conduct of the party, which is alleged to have committed deliberate default in complying with the directions in the judgment or order. If the 6 judgment or order does not contain any specific direction regarding a matter or if there is any ambiguity in the directions issued therein then it will be better to direct the parties to approach the court which disposed of the matter for clarification of the order instead of the court exercising contempt jurisdiction taking upon itself the power to decide the original proceeding in a manner not dealt with by the court passing the judgment or order. If this limitation is borne in mind then criticisms which are sometimes levelled against the courts exercising contempt of court jurisdiction “that it has exceeded its powers in granting substantive relief and issuing a direction regarding the same without proper adjudication of the dispute” in its entirety can be avoided. This will also avoid multiplicity of proceedings because the party which is prejudicially affected by the judgment or order passed in the contempt proceeding and granting relief and issuing fresh directions is likely to challenge that order and that may give rise to another round of litigation arising from a proceeding which is intended to maintain the majesty and image of courts. 7. In the case of R. N. Dey & others Vs Bhagyabati Pramanik & others reported in (2000) 4 SCC 400 that weapon of contempt is not to be used in abundance. Normally, it cannot be used for execution of the 7 decree or implementation of an order for which alternative remedy in law is provided for. Discretion given to the Court is to be exercised for maintenance of the Court's dignity and majesty of law. In view of aforesaid, it is not absolute to contend that in every case, execution has to be filed for implementation of order. Discretion has been given to the Court and the same has to be exercised for maintenance of dignity of the Court and majesty of law. 8. “Civil contempt” means wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court or wilful breach of an undertaking given to a court. 9. The Apex Court in the case of Niaz Mohammad And Others, Etc. Etc. vs State Of Haryana And Others reported in (1994) 6 SCC 332 held in the following: "The Court while considering the issue as to whether the alleged contemnor should be punished for not having complied and carried out the direction of the Court, has to take into consideration all facts and circumstances of a particular case. That is why the framers of the Act while defining civil contempt, have said that it must be wilful disobedience to any judgment, decree, direction, order, writ or other process of a court. Before a contemnor is punished for non compliance of the direction of a court the Court must 8 not only be satisfied about the disobedience of any judgment, decree, direction or writ but should also be satisfied that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. The Civil Court while executing a decree against the judgment debtor is not concerned and bothered whether the disobedience to any judgment, or decree, was wilful. Once a decree has been passed it is the duty of the court to execute the decree whatever may be consequences thereof. But while examining the grievance of the person who has invoked the jurisdiction of the Court to initiate the proceeding for contempt for disobedience of its order, before any such contemnor is held guilty and punished, the Court has to record a finding that such disobedience was wilful and intentional. If from the circumstances of a particular case, brought to the notice of the court, the Court is satisfied that although there has been disobedience but such disobedience is the result of some compelling circumstances which it was not possible for the contemnor to comply with the order, the Court may not punish the alleged contemnor." 10. On conspectus reading of the above judgements, the order of this Court is executable order before the Industrial Tribunal, accordingly, finding no merit in the instant petition, the same is dismissed, as not calling for taking action against the respondents under the Contempt of Courts Act 1971, while granting liberty to the petitioner to invoke his 9 remedy, if so advised, under the provisions of the Industrial Disputes Act. 11. Accordingly, the Contempt Case is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. As a sequel thereto, Interlocutory Applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. __________________________________ JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO Date: 07.08.2026 siva 10 THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CONTEMPT CASE No.323 of 2025 Date: 07.08.2026 siva