2026 LLR 180
MADRAS HIGH COURT
Hon'ble Dr. A.D. Maria Clete, J.
Cont. P. No. 3334/2025, Dt/– 24-11-2025
C. Subramanian
v.
Thiru V. Gunasekaraji, Managing Director,
Tamil Nadu State Transport Corporation
(Salem) Limited
AWARD – Non-implementation of – Whether contempt – An order of reinstatement was passed by the Labour Court, which came to be confirmed by the High Court – A contempt petition has been filed for the non-implementation of the award – Held, when the High Court confirms or modifies an award of the labour Court, it yet remains an award of the Labour Court as so modified – Non-implementation of the award by itself is not contempt – The appropriate remedy is execution under the ID Act before the Labour Court – Contempt is not a substitute for execution – Contempt jurisdiction of the High Court cannot be converted into an executive forum or to adjudicate the merits of implementation – The petition framed as a contempt application to secure the fruits of the Labour Court award, is not maintainable – It is open to the petitioner to work out execution for the jurisdictional forum. Paras 3 to 6
For Petitioner: Mr. K.M. Ramesh, Senior Counsel.
For Respondent: Mr. K. Raja, TNSTC (Salem), Standing Counsel.
IMPORTANT POINTS
Note: This judgment is relevant even after the notification of the Labour Codes as it deals with implementation of the awards of industrial adjudicators, the fulcrum of which has been retained under the Industrial Relations Code, 2020.
JUDGMENT
A.D. Maria Clete, J.–1. Heard. The petition alleges wilful disobedience of the order dated 20-03-2025 in W.P. No. 19503 of 2020.
2. The underlying dispute arises from an order of reinstatement passed by the Labour Court which, on challenge, stood confirmed/modified by this Court. The present grievance, in substance, is to secure implementation of the order passed by this Court.
3. The settled position is that when this Court confirms or modifies an award of the Labour Court, it yet remains an award of the Labour Court as so modified. Non-implementation of such award does not, by itself, found contempt; the appropriate remedy is execution under the Industrial Disputes Act before the jurisdictional Labour Court. Contempt is not a substitute for execution and the said position was settled in the Judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in R. Gopala Krishnan v. Management of Binny Ltd., Chennai , (2001) 4 LLN 854.
4. Contempt lies only upon intentional disobedience of a clear, specific and mandatory judicial command by a person having notice and capacity to comply. The order dated 20-03-2025 recorded that the Corporation should determine the appropriate relief within a time frame. That process-direction cannot be employed to convert contempt jurisdiction into an executing forum or to adjudicate the merits of implementation.
5. On these premises, the petition, framed as a contempt action to secure the fruits of the Labour Court award, is not maintainable.
6. Accordingly, the Contempt Petition is dismissed as not maintainable, leaving it open to the petitioner to work out execution before the jurisdictional Labour Court or avail of any other remedy in law, as advised. No opinion is expressed on the merits of the award or on any claim to monetary/service benefits. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, stand closed.
No costs.